Thanks for the long and valuable exposition of what tribalism is and isn't. FWIW, I've come to see Sam Harris more of a perpetual renegade, someone who likes to upset apple carts. My main issue with him is not that he's tribal, but that he's not all that learned as his public persona would suggest. His scientific training is fairly thin …
Thanks for the long and valuable exposition of what tribalism is and isn't. FWIW, I've come to see Sam Harris more of a perpetual renegade, someone who likes to upset apple carts. My main issue with him is not that he's tribal, but that he's not all that learned as his public persona would suggest. His scientific training is fairly thin (as far as I know, he never held an academic position and authored maybe a couple of scientific papers), and he has a fairly selective and superficial knowledge of philosophy.
This may sound effete and elitist, but I noticed that he's often introduced as a neuroscientist and philosopher, suggesting an intellectual gravitas he simply doesn't possess at this point--his radio voice and self-assured demeanour suggest more substance than currently exists. By all appearances, he's a fast learner, so he can hold his own quite well in debates and interviews, but when the topic gets deeper or takes an unexpected direction, he often flounders (for me, exhibit A is still the recent discussion he had with Evan Thompson who's someone who really does know his stuff and then some; Harris also didn't do particularly well in the Guru Podcast interview imo).
I should say that I was initially quite impressed by Harris (some 4-5 years ago)--he made some astute observations about American politics, his book "Waking Up" is a great read, and his Waking Up app features some really good content. Having learnt more about him over the last few years, I just think he's been given a disproportionate amount, and perhaps the wrong kind of, attention. He's become a minor celebrity of sorts. I hope he can wiggle out of this and set some priorities that are likely to reap the most benefits both for himself and his audience.
I have my disagreements about some things that Bob says, e.g., the about the utility of evolutionary psychology for explaining much of human behaviour and history. But if I'd ever had to pick a tribe, it would be the "Wright tribe" (I'm sure someone else already made that pun, so sorry), not because I agree with everything Bob says or does, but because I feel quite at home with the idea of a nuanced discussion (such as about American foreign policy and politics) informed by deeper knowledge or by the recognition that knowledge and wisdom are often hard to come by or articulate.
I agree especially on the "selective and superficial knowledge of philosophy" part. His book the Moral Landscape is an embarrassment. He doesn't seem to understand that, if you're going to argue that science can tell us that utilitarianism is correct, you have to grapple with the question of how we can be sure that happiness (or human welfare, or however you define what utilitarianism aims to maximize) is a moral good. Maybe he thinks there's an answer to that question, but any good philosopher could have told him it's considered a critical question.
Thanks for the long and valuable exposition of what tribalism is and isn't. FWIW, I've come to see Sam Harris more of a perpetual renegade, someone who likes to upset apple carts. My main issue with him is not that he's tribal, but that he's not all that learned as his public persona would suggest. His scientific training is fairly thin (as far as I know, he never held an academic position and authored maybe a couple of scientific papers), and he has a fairly selective and superficial knowledge of philosophy.
This may sound effete and elitist, but I noticed that he's often introduced as a neuroscientist and philosopher, suggesting an intellectual gravitas he simply doesn't possess at this point--his radio voice and self-assured demeanour suggest more substance than currently exists. By all appearances, he's a fast learner, so he can hold his own quite well in debates and interviews, but when the topic gets deeper or takes an unexpected direction, he often flounders (for me, exhibit A is still the recent discussion he had with Evan Thompson who's someone who really does know his stuff and then some; Harris also didn't do particularly well in the Guru Podcast interview imo).
I should say that I was initially quite impressed by Harris (some 4-5 years ago)--he made some astute observations about American politics, his book "Waking Up" is a great read, and his Waking Up app features some really good content. Having learnt more about him over the last few years, I just think he's been given a disproportionate amount, and perhaps the wrong kind of, attention. He's become a minor celebrity of sorts. I hope he can wiggle out of this and set some priorities that are likely to reap the most benefits both for himself and his audience.
I have my disagreements about some things that Bob says, e.g., the about the utility of evolutionary psychology for explaining much of human behaviour and history. But if I'd ever had to pick a tribe, it would be the "Wright tribe" (I'm sure someone else already made that pun, so sorry), not because I agree with everything Bob says or does, but because I feel quite at home with the idea of a nuanced discussion (such as about American foreign policy and politics) informed by deeper knowledge or by the recognition that knowledge and wisdom are often hard to come by or articulate.
I agree especially on the "selective and superficial knowledge of philosophy" part. His book the Moral Landscape is an embarrassment. He doesn't seem to understand that, if you're going to argue that science can tell us that utilitarianism is correct, you have to grapple with the question of how we can be sure that happiness (or human welfare, or however you define what utilitarianism aims to maximize) is a moral good. Maybe he thinks there's an answer to that question, but any good philosopher could have told him it's considered a critical question.