r/samharris

Paul Bloom (Blog11/12/13, Blog 8/27/14, Episode 14, 16, 56, Blog 4/23/18, ep. 183, 185, 187, 188, 192, 198, 266, 317, 427) - Psychologist

Ricky Gervais (Absolutely Mental S1-3; #163, 235, 237, 239, 279) - Comedian

Douglas Murray (#21, #85, #93, #281; #344 crosspost of Call Me Back Podcast; #362, #410; moderator for two JBP debates) - Author, political commentator

Nicholas Christakis (100, 156, 190, 222, 270, 466) - Sociologist and Physician

Yuval Noah Harari (68, 138, 201, 276, 341, 386) - Historian

David Frum (65, 80, 114, 206, 274, 426) - Author, political commentator

Richard Dawkins (57, 60, 105, 174, 382; *The Four Horsemen*; live shows & debates) - Evolutionary Biologist

Will MacAskill (44, 228, 292, 361, 467) - Philosopher

Anne Applebaum (69, 76, 274, 376, 429) - Journalist, Historian

Graeme Wood (Blog 3/4/15, #82, 216, 278, 283, 339) - journalist and PoliSci professor

Jonah Goldberg (#296, #403, #428, #460, Sam on The Remnant) - Editor-in-Chief of The Dispatch, Senior Fellow at the AEI

Andrew Yang (262, 236, 202, 130) - Politician

Caitlin Flanagan (165, 197, 199, 203) - Writer

Andrew Sullivan (Blog Post Interview, 49, 114, 223) - Writer, Political Commentator

Joseph Goldstein (4, 15, 63, AMA 14) - Meditation Teacher

Rob Reid (Engineering the Apocalypse; Recipes for Future Plagues; #463) - Writer, Businessperson, Podcaster

Tristan Harris (71, 218, 469) - Technology Ethicist

Gary Kasparov (58, 275, 461) - Chess Grandmaster, Activist

John McWhorter (217, 265, 452) - Linguist, Social Commentator

Peter Zeihan (#288, #355, #447) - Geopolitical Strategist

Renée DiResta (145, 310, 378) - Writer, Researcher

Peter Singer (48, 245, 342) - Philosopher

Neil deGrasse Tyson (37, 252, 302) - Science Educator, Astrophysicist

Max Tegmark (18, 94, 120) - Physicist, Cosmologist, Machine Learning Research

Siddhartha Mukherjee (77, 98, 214) - Biologist, Physician

Ian Bremmer (133, 277, 288) - Political Scientist

Stuart Russell (53, 153, 312) - Computer Scientist

Jonathan Haidt (31, 137, 204) - Social Psychologist

Megan Phelps-Roper (episodes 12, 171, 314) - Writer, Podcaster

David Whyte (184, 249, 240) - Poet

Annaka Harris (158, 178, 404) - Writer

David Deutsch (22, 52, 412) - Physicist

Yasmine Mohammed (175, 298 rebroadcast, 370, + her podcast) - Writer, activist, podcast host

Jordan B. Peterson (62, 67, Live Debates 1-4) - Psychologist

Bill Maher (139, 371, + Real Time & Club Random) - Comedian, TV Host

Coleman Hughes (episodes 353, 134, + 3x on CH's podcast) - Writer, Musician

Tammler Sommers (92, 126, episodes of Very Bad Wizards) - Philosopher

Eric Weinstein (41, 112, The Portal, etc.) - Social Commentary, Mathematical Physics

Bari Weiss (173, 310, The Free Press) - Journalist, Podcaster

Josh Szeps (#350, #362, 2x on Josh's podcast?) - Podcaster

Maajid Nawaz (#23 excerpt from *Islam & the Future of Tolerance*; #59) - author

Ben Shapiro ($112, #472, debate on *Free Press*, Sam on Ben Shapiro Sunday Show) - Political Commentator

*Rahm Emanuel* (#387, #470) - Politician

*Judea Pearl* (#164, #453) - professor of computer science and statistics

*David Edmonds* (#321, #448) - Philosopher

*George Packer* (#274, #444) - Writer and journalist

*Eliezer Yudkowky* (116, 434) - Computer Scientist

*Dan Carlin* (#11, #433) - Podcaster

*David French* (#285, #432) - Journalist

*Niall Ferguson* (#117, #402) - Historian

*Nick Bostrom* (episodes 116, 385) - theoretical physics, AI, computational neuroscience, and philosophy

*Barton Gellman* (episodes 274, 384) - Journalist, author, Senior Advisor at the Brennan Center

*Rory Stewart* (episodes 352, 356) - ex-politician, advisor to GiveDirectly

*David Brooks* (episodes 89, 334) - writer, columnist, professor

*Bart D. Ehrman* (episodes 125, 313) - New Testament Scholar

*Roland Griffiths* (177, 306) - Neuroscientist and Psychopharmacologist

*Oliver Burkeman* (289, 269) - Journalist, Self-Help Author

*Eric Topol* (256, 162) - Cardiologist

*Matt Dillahunty* (105, 115) - Podcaster, Debater, Atheist Activist

*Michael Weiss* (30, 160) - Journalist

*Lawrence Krauss* (70, 115) - Physicist

*General Stanley McChrystal* (195, 231) - Military General

*Marc Andreessen* (#290, 324) - computer scientist, entrepreneur

*Nina Schick* (#220, 326) - author, Generative AI consultant

*Yascha Mounk* (160, 336) - Professor, author, podcaster, founder of Persuasion

*Daniel Dennett* (39, Blog debates on free will, 4 Horsemen conversation/book) - Philosopher

*Bret Weinstein* (109, Moderator for two JBP Debates) - Evolutionary Biologist

*Scott Barry Kaufman* (209, 411) - Psychologist

*Shadi Hamid* (#55, Waking Up conversation) - author, Muslim scholar, policy researcher

*Bret Stephens* (#329, #357) - Journalist

*Cass R. Sunstein* (#101, #359) - Law Professor

*Robert Sapolsky* (#91, #360) - Professor of biology, neuroscience, and neurosurgery

*Cal Newport* (#304, #363) - Professor of Computer Science

*Dan Harris* (#408, two blog posts in 2014, 4 episodes on 10% happier, 1 episode with Dan on Rogan, 1 recorded live appearance)

*Anil Seth* (ep. 113 - 3 hours, ep. 264 - rebroadcast) - Neuroscientist

Has Sam ever spoken or touched on the argument from reason? The argument has had such an effect on me that I don’t believe I can remain in the materialist camp anymore. Even more than much of the free will argument Sam makes.

The argument is formulated as such:

1. ⁠No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of non rational causes.

2. ⁠If materialism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.

3. ⁠Therefore, if materialism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred.

4. ⁠If any thesis entails the conclusion that no belief is rationally inferred, then it should be rejected and its denial accepted.

5. ⁠Therefore materialism should be rejected and its denial accepted.

I have noticed that Sam has said quite a few times that friendship/companionship with AI is meaningless (unless you are in hospice or have Alzheimers). While I agree with that claim for today's AI, I am surprised that he doesn't think that it is equally inevitable that as machines get more intelligent they will become more worthy companions.

Stating that it is not possible to have meaningful companionship with super intelligent AI would be the same as saying it is impossible with aliens in my opinion.

All of this is to say that I think that as much as Sam Harris is very on point in the AI field I do think he has a blind spot when it comes to this part as if it is truly substrate independent then I don't think there is anything that a human can do that something else cannot.

Reading Dewey and some of the other American pragmatists (like Rorty's great essay here) always seems to parallel some of the thinking in Sam's Moral Landscape and elsewhere -- though Sam's arguments are more explicitly in the normative ethics direction and not in terms of a theory of truth.

Trigger Warning: This text contains tons of sarcasm.

In Sam's recent pod w/ Ben, Ben loves to use his plumber analogy when discussing how he decides which politicans to vote for. It's not the first time he's used it, and if you're unfamilar, the rough summary is:

When I hire a plumber, I am not asking whether he is personally virtuous, whether I like his personality, or whether I would want him teaching ethics to my children. I mainly want to know: can he fix the toilet, will he show up, will he not overcharge me, and will he not wreck the house while doing the job?

Oh Ben.... let me count the ways you're wrong -

1. Right in his own analagy is an obvious problem. I don't care if he's virtous, but I don't want him to over charge me. Well of course an amoral plumber is going to look to overcharge and take advantage of you.
2. You may not need your plumber to teach ethics to your kids, but you should still care whether he is the kind of stranger you’d trust inside your house while your kids are home.
3. Are you going to stand over the crack of an amoral plumber, and make sure he only does the job, and doesn't case your house or steal from you?
4. Someone who is incompetent is 100% going to wreck your house. Trump showed many times over, between his first term, and his whole life, that he's an incompetent, know-nothing. How can you know much of anything, if you don't even read?

I've REALLY wanted to give people on the right a pass, that they just misjudged Trump somehow (how you do that, I don't know). But the more people like Ben and even my neighbors, dig in to supporting him, the more we need to realize there's something extremely rotten in American culture. I know I'm not saying anything new here.

My primary point is - if you can't recognize that someone is extremely corrupt and amoral, and should never be put in a position of power, it says everything that needs to be said about you as a person. No amount of justification should let that off the hook.

I want to listen to the recent Shapiro interview. I’m willing to pay for it but not $100 for a full year’s subscription. Especially when I have other gripes with the quality of the podcast.

Is there no way to buy individual episodes?

There have been many complaints here over the last year or two that Sam hasn't had many interesting guests on to talk about anything outside of his now-usual beat: Trump, wokeness, and AI. I'm among those currently dissatisfied, but there must be some listeners on here who think the podcast is genuinely doing great right now. If that's you, what are you enjoying? What keeps you coming back?

The relationship between race and police is one of Sam's recurrent subjects. New research from North Carolina finds body-worn cameras reduced black incarceration rates by 10.5%. When prosecutors see what actually happened instead of relying solely on police reports, racial disparities in convictions and sentencing shrink.

I found this published in the CATO Institute page, which isn't precisely suspect of being a lefty think tank:

https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/learning-about-police-bias-prosecutors-police-after-body-worn

The original paper:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6535959

Apologies in advance if it's an obvious observation to some people, but it wasn't obvious to me before.

Basically, I travelled to many different countries (mostly Muslim countries because I'm Muslim but also many European countries and North America (USA, Canada, Mexico).

What I realized is...... everyone mostly likes the same things and would do almost exactly the same things if given the opportunity to do so.

What I mean by this is, humans aren't as diverse as I first thought in terms of their will.

E.g. If you go to Saudi Arabia, which is meant to be a very conservative religious place, what you'll find is that the overwhelming majority there:

1. Love to watch movies and sports

2. Love to eat pizza with coca cola.

3. Love to go to the beach

4. Love to doomscroll on their phone

Basically, the point is, it doesn't seem like people are much different 99% of the time.

And before anyone thinks I'm just using one country, I've seen this literally everywhere I went.

Humans seem to gravitate towards the same behaviors. Again, the important caveat I would add is: *if given the opportunity to do so* (Therefore places like North Korea or Afghanistan don't count because people aren't given opportunities there in the first place!)

If humans all seem to gravitate towards the same behaviors (which appears to be true), then I think human free will might be far more constrained than I thought. In fact, it might have very tight parameters.

If we had a generous amount of free will, why couldn't entire populations choose something completely different?

I think human free will has very tight parameters.

The Trump DOJ is indicting James Comey a 2nd time - this time for a clearly constitutional expression of free speech in which James Comey posted a photo of seashells on a beach to his Instagram. The shells spell out the numbers "8647". "86" is the colloquial term for when bartenders and restaurants kick somebody out of their establishment and "47" refers to Trump as 47th president. The Trump DoJ is - ridiculously - indicting him for threatening the President's life.

That's right, the official position of the U.S. government, which it has formalized with official criminal charges against a former FBI Director, is that a picture of seashells is a threat to assassinate the President of the United States.

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes it easy to understand why so many people believe that the Trump Admin set up that entire scene at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.

If a former FBI director can post a benign Instagram photo of seashells arranged as “8647” and the DOJ stretches that into a supposed assassination threat, it signals to people that even institutions with as much gravitas as the DoJ are willing to completely reinvent and reshape reality to fit a narrative. They're more than willing to sacrifice the trust that people may have in a neutral justice system in order to achieve not just political ends, but the personal, retributive goals of a single man.

Once people see that kind of distortion coming from official channels for such petty reasons, they start to feel like nothing is reliably true, that everything is spin, and that "official" explanations are just another story being pushed for political benefit.

There’s a kind of epistemological exhaustion that has set in among Americans w/r/t what comes from our government. In this environment, it’s not surprising that even outlandish conspiracy theories start to feel plausible to many.

Everyone seems very interested in this topic, so with the help of AI, I have listed the year, number of episodes, and the topics across that year. Crosscheck it if you'd like. I'm not here to argue in any way, even about AI. Enjoy!

Year	Episodes	Political	Science	Meditation	Other
2013	3	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	66.7% (2)	33.3% (1)
2014	4	25.0% (1)	25.0% (1)	50.0% (2)	0.0% (0)
2015	19	42.1% (8)	21.1% (4)	5.3% (1)	31.6% (6)
2016	35	37.1% (13)	17.1% (6)	2.9% (1)	42.9% (15)
2017	54	38.9% (21)	35.2% (19)	7.4% (4)	18.5% (10)
2018	37	37.8% (14)	24.3% (9)	13.5% (5)	24.3% (9)
2019	36	38.9% (14)	41.7% (15)	0.0% (0)	19.4% (7)
2020	49	38.8% (19)	40.8% (20)	8.2% (4)	12.2% (6)
2021	47	36.2% (17)	27.7% (13)	4.3% (2)	31.9% (15)
2022	39	46.2% (18)	23.1% (9)	2.6% (1)	28.2% (11)
2023	39	43.6% (17)	41.0% (16)	2.6% (1)	12.8% (5)
2024	50	56.0% (28)	26.0% (13)	2.0% (1)	16.0% (8)
2025	55	69.1% (38)	12.7% (7)	5.5% (3)	12.7% (7)
2026	22	72.7% (16)	22.7% (5)	0.0% (0)	4.5% (1)
Total	489	45.8% (224)	28.0% (137)	5.5% (27)	20.7% (101)

Yesterday I posted a thread expressing concern about conspiracy thinking increasingly becoming normalised on the left, particularly online. Right now, the top post on the politics subreddit is: “I get why people call the white correspondence dinner shooting staged. I was there.”

Within an hour of last nights thread, it had accumulated over 100 comments, many of which confidently asserted that the recent assassination attempt on Trump was staged.

That response however reveals something about the discourse in this subreddit. Criticism of Sam (which of course is fair game) has routinely produced arguments that are not engaged with on their merits, but instead caricatured, misrepresented, or replaced with claims he simply hasn’t made.

Given the critical thinking skills on display with yesterdays thread, outside of the usual bad faith suspects, much of Sam’s critics stem from a failure of basic comprehension combined with a reflex that treats any proximity to controversial topics as evidence of wrongdoing.

Last nights thread was sobering and reaffirming to me that no matter the tsunami of bullshit that comes flying in Sam’s direction, he is still a sane voice in this ever increasing delusional landscape.

Sam is right. This subreddit is a cesspit.

So Sam wants to spend a lot of money and time to leave the real world even more now.
Reddit is a cesspool because the world is a cesspool. Most people are pretty stupid and have terrible psychological conditioning and pathologies. This is not a hot take. The average IQ is 100. We're mostly plumbers, not academic philosophers.

Not engaging with a cesspool like reddit is to not engage with the real world. If Sam is just going to make another hangout for himself where only the elites who pay his exorbitant subscription fee is allowed then he'll just be creating an echochamber. An echochamber that will only mean he gets further out of touch and will further decline in popularity. A chamber that I'd be happy for him to keep to himself.

As a self identifying progressive liberal I struggled with how I could support Israel.

What finally convinced me was hearing/reading the words of the enemies of Israel.

The charter of Hamas,

The stated nuclear motivations of Iran,

Suicide bombers who were captured before they could explode.

I’m reaching out to this group because I’d like to find more examples like this.

BLUF: Treating conspiracy theories as “possibly true” without evidence is not skepticism. It is the exact confusion Bannon’s strategy depends on.

In 2018 Steve Bannon infamously stated:

>“The Democrats don't matter... The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit."

In a 2021 interview, Jonathan Rauch describes this kind of tactic:

>“This is not about persuasion: This is about disorientation.”

He connects it to trolling and attention-capture tactics, saying:

>“One of them is what we call trolling, but this was perfected by Hitler and Goebbels who said, ‘We don’t care if they laugh at us. We don’t care if they say things about us. The point is we want them to think about us all the time.’”

Rauch then explains the effect of this kind of information strategy:

>“You’re disorienting people. You’re flooding the zone. That’s why Steve Bannon says we’ve got to flood the zone with shit. So people hear so much from so many sources, they just become, you know, they no longer know what to believe. So, they become cynical and confused.”

That fits closely with the RAND Corporation’s description of the “firehose of falsehood” propaganda model:

>“We characterize the contemporary Russian model for propaganda as ‘the firehose of falsehood’ because of two of its distinctive features: high numbers of channels and messages and a shameless willingness to disseminate partial truths or outright fictions.”

So the common thread is this: the goal is not simply to make people believe one specific claim. The goal is to overwhelm attention, create confusion, and make people unsure what can be trusted. The reaction to this latest assassination attempt looks like further evidence that they are achieving their goal.

When you have otherwise intelligent people noncommittally giving credence to conspiracy theories, with no evidence beyond the claim that everything else is already under suspicion of falsehood, then Bannon wins.