Sam Harris and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
Just like Trump, Sam Harris wants to be taken seriously, but not literally.
A few days ago, best-selling author and public persona Sam Harris, host of the “Making Sense” podcast gave an interview on another podcast, “Triggernometry”. Such an event would normally be unremarkable but for some of the statements Harris made about the 2020 election.
A few hours after the podcast had posted to YouTube, a twitter thread started that live tweeted personal reactions to the interview. In a few sections, clips of the interview were excerpted that contained extensive argumentation by Harris that it was absolutely true that those in power conspired to control true information from being disseminated in the weeks prior to the 2020 election; it was absolutely morally justified for them to do so; and that but for them engaging in this action Trump would be President for a second term.
While claims like this may raise eyebrows when made by an arbitrary person picked at random, they are particularly controversial when made by Sam Harris because his earlier career was distinguished by him being opposed to the very idea of lying in virtually all cases. In fact, being against the idea is one of his best-selling books.
Viral clips
Full disclosure: The author of the above mentioned tweet thread that went viral is a friend of mine whom I talk to regularly.
One of the clips in particular has garnered over five million views, been copied and replayed on cable news and syndicated radio shows, and has been the topic of discussion across large swaths of the internet since it posted.
Hunter Biden literally could have had the corpses of children in his basement - I would not have cared.
[…]
That doesn’t answer the people who say that it’s still completely unfair to not have look at [Hunter Biden’s] laptop in a timely way and to have shut down the New York Post’s twitter account. That’s just a left-wing conspiracy to deny the Presidency to Donald Trump. Absolutely it was. Absolutely. But I think it was warranted.
Yikes.
Unfortunately, it’s kinda like in Batman
At the beginning of the Triggernometry interview Sam is asked to describe what makes him stand out as a public figure.
I think there’s one algorithm I’m running more than most which is, you know, what I would call ‘Intellectual Honesty.’ The burden is not to be who you were yesterday. The burden isn’t to join some tribe - who, you know, you’ll get some social reinforcement from for, you know, conforming to. Insofar as I’m continually just trying to figure out what’s true and what’s consistent to what I claimed was true five minutes ago or five years ago. That causes me to just bump up against taboos and blasphemies and theologies that, uhm, are more rigid than that. Right? I mean if you’re, I mean really it’s…it’s…I mean even having an identity itself is too much. You know, not only can you not conform to a tribe you can’t really even conform to who you were yesterday if your master value is to be honest and rigorous and available to new data and new arguments and new insights.
Having your master value be ‘to be honest,’ and to continually try to figure out what’s true and what’s consistent with what you claimed was true five minutes or five years ago is to some degree heroic. But heroism, unfortunately, is kinda like in Batman.
In July 2017 Sam Harris had a discussion with Scott Adams, who is most famous for being the artist and creator of the nationally syndicated cartoon Dilbert. Scott had recently started a new trajectory in his career - opining to a wide audience his view of a political world where Donald Trump is a centerpiece. Scott also was soon to be releasing a book “Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter.”
In this discussion, Scott Adams made the argument that Donald Trump’s words should be taken seriously but not literally echoing similar sentiments as others. Harris strongly rejected this idea.
Scott said to Sam
They are almost always emotionally true, or they're emotionally compatible with what his his supporters are already thinking. There is an emotional and directional truth to what he does that's independent from the facts being completely wrong.
Sam described that explanation as “fairly strange, ethically.”
For instance, this idea that he's making this first offer that is extreme, that then he walks back to something more reasonable and that this is a technique for which he pays no penalty [that] it's just an unambiguously good technique that his fans recognize…
The Sam of five years ago it seems would find the Sam today “fairly strange, ethically” when hearing a statement such as
Hunter Biden literally could have had the corpses of children in his basement - I would not have cared.
One presumes that this sentence is not to be taken literally, despite the inclusion, literally, of the word “literally”. The forgiving interpretation is that he believes that what was likely to be found on Hunter Biden’s laptop would be more sensational than truly concerning - and that the threshold to meet for concern in the contents is exceptionally high and unlikely to be met.
That would be taking Sam Harris seriously, but not literally. What Sam said has an emotional and directional truth.
Sam then goes on to walk back his statement about children’s corpses (his first offer) towards something seemingly more reasonable.
Whatever [the] scope of Joe Biden’s corruption is…like if we could just go down that rabbit hole endlessly and understand that he’s getting kickbacks from Hunter Biden’s…Ukraine or wherever else...or china. It is infinitesimal to the corruption we know Trump is involved in. It’s like a firefly to the sun. Like, like, there’s just it doesn’t even stack up against Trump University. Right? Trump University, as a story, is worse than anything that could be in Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Seemingly more reasonable, since we do not have corpses of children to consider as being worse than Trump University. That comes at the cost though of insinuating that the forms of corruption he included, which normally make someone unworthy for the office, are now acceptable qualities for his vote. Nevermind all the lying about it he finds acceptable in contrast to Trump.
The lack of consistency between Sam five years ago about Trump and Sam today is made more stark when you hear his own words from both time periods together.
Sam Harris “five minutes ago”
One of the problems Sam has today matching the Sam described at the start of his interview is that his usage of hyperbole and looseness with factual information must be heard only as “emotionally or directionally true.” Additionally, he is regularly in a mode of rationalization - where the justification for his actions or professed beliefs comes after they have been made.
One such location this can be seen is in a part of the interview where Sam discusses Donald Trump and Alex Jones being banned from Twitter. Sam starts by saying that he believes it’s time to allow social media platforms to discriminate against anyone they wish. He articulated that it should be up to the company to decide in any manner they wish, who is allowed on the platform, even if it would classically violate the 1964 civil rights act. Nobody should be allowed to tell a company who to have on their platform.
But then immediately after, he says about Twitter
I see a company that has a Terms of Service which people like Alex Jones and Trump clearly violated. I mean whether in fact they violated the Terms of Service as written, I think they violated any coherent terms of service that Twitter should have had.
In two sentences we go from a truth claim: Trump and Alex Jones clearly violated Twitter’s Terms of Service, to them violating Terms of Service Sam Harris thinks they should have had. What Sam thinks the Terms of Service should have been of course goes against the principle of nobody telling a company who to have on their platform, but I’m sure he would argue he doesn’t have any power to force them so it’s moot.
But Sam’s construction here shows an ambivalence towards truth by making a truth claim, realizing he didn’t know if the claim was true, and then constructing an argument that the truth of the situation is irrelevant. If Sam wishes to hold truth as his master value, he can save himself and everyone else time by simply saying “Trump and Alex Jones should have been banned because I think they should have been banned.” That’s the truth.
Sam’s magnum opus of inconsistency
Sam’s inability to maintain consistency for a few sentences in the case of Twitter may be easy to discard. Trump and Alex Jones were banned, and many people could find themselves in agreement with that action. Twitter, or any social media company, could put a clause in their Terms of Service that says they can ban any user at any time at their discretion and except by having a court agree they shouldn’t have been banned, like recently happened with independent journalist Alex Berenson.
But discarding the next example might prove more difficult.
That doesn’t answer the people who say that it’s still completely unfair to not have look at [Hunter Biden’s] laptop in a timely way and to have shut down the New York Post’s twitter account. That’s just a left-wing conspiracy to deny the Presidency to Donald Trump. Absolutely it was. Absolutely. But I think it was warranted.
The host pushes back on Sam and asks him if he really supports “a left-wing conspiracy to deny the Presidency to Donald Trump.”
Sam: Well, no I’m content w-…but it’s…the thing is that it’s not left-wing. I mean, Liz Cheney is not left-wing.
Host: You’re content with a conspiracy to prevent someone from being democratically elected?
Sam: Well, no it’s not…there’s nothing…Conspiracy? There’s it’s there was a conspiracy out in the open but it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what part’s conspiracy what part is out in the open. I mean, it’s like, if people get together and talk about ‘what should we do about this phenomenon’ it’s like…if…if there was an asteroid hurtling toward earth and we got in a room with all of our friends and have a conversation about what we could do to deflect it’s course…right…is that a conspiracy?
So in an exceptionally short time Sam has demonstrated his quest to figure out what’s true and to be consistent with what he said to be true “five minutes ago,” by the following sequence of claims
There was absolutely a left-wing conspiracy to withhold information from the American public to deny the presidency to Donald Trump
It’s not a left-wing conspiracy because Liz Cheney supported it
Conspiracies out in the open aren’t conspiracies
It doesn’t matter how much or how little is out in the open because is it really a conspiracy just because people are conspiring?
Sam’s resorting to the asteroid analogy was of necessity. If Sam had spent more time trying “figure out what’s true and what’s consistent to what I claimed was true five minutes ago or five years ago,” he may have been able to spot where he went wrong.
He wants people to take him seriously, but not literally.
I think this shows that any religion based on rules made within the system (rational thought) will fail. Sam Harris just crashed new atheism by showing that its OK to behave outside of the system he created if he thinks its the right reason. By twisting his moral system, he can rationalize the censorship of the NY Post. Now he can rationalize anything: Fraud, Murder, etc. There is no limiting principle. It can be reduced to "Might makes right".
Precise and clear. As usual. Love your work.