I remember listening to the podcast of this debate and found this read interesting. I’m sort of inherently inclined to take Klein’s side here, but one thing that Harris said in the debate I thought was really important was that we need to be able to talk about controversial things. Like what if some inconvenient science came out showed minority group a way in some way that could be interpreted inferior to majority group b (this was in response to a study that I think showed that white people had more Neanderthal dna than black people - what if the results had been the reverse)<p>But then, Harris’ response to regrettable conclusions doesn’t seem grounded. If you’re going to say it’s ok to rationally decide that 6 extends from 1-5. What’s to stop you from saying that policy should extend from rationality. That with limited funds, educational opportunities should preference populations with high IQs.<p>He sort of has this well obviously we shouldn’t implement policy that preferences groups over individuals. He rejects talking about the moral/political implications of his discussion of intelligence, and then somehow makes the assertion that his moral framework is indisputably correct.