#109— Biology and Culture
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
156.95352
Summary
Evergreen University biologist Brett Weinstein joins me for a live podcast in Seattle to talk about the Evergreen scandal, and why it's important to know what happened at Evergreen, and how it affects the rest of the country, as well as the world, in the wake of the scandal. Sam Harris is a best-selling author and host of the podcast Making Sense, which focuses on the intersection of science and culture. He's also a philosopher, philosopher, and evolutionary biologist who focuses on big questions, like the evolution of cancer and senescence, and moral self-sacrifice. But he also focuses on how an understanding of evolution can actually inform our lives and improve our society, and we'll get into all of that in this episode. Please consider becoming a supporter of The Making Sense Podcast, which is made possible entirely through the support of our subscribers. If you enjoy what we re doing here, please consider becoming one. We don t run ads on the podcast, and therefore, therefore, you are not currently on our subscriber feed and will only be hearing the first part of this conversation. So if you re not a subscriber yet, you d like to become one, you ll need to subscribe to our premium membership, which means you ll get access to the full episode of Making Sense! Subscribe to our newest episode of the Making Sense podcast, which will be available on all major podcast directories, including Audible, iTunes, Podchaser, Podcoin, and The Huffington Post, wherever else you re listening to podcasts are listening to the podcast. You ll be able to access full episodes of the making sense Podcasts, full-time. and full-accessible. . Thanks for listening to Making Sense? Thank you, Sam Harris and Happy listening to all the best of your comments, and support the podcast by clicking here. , and much more! - your continued support is greatly appreciated. - making sense at making sense, thank you, making sense everywhere else, you'll need to listen to this podcast, you can help us make sense, and you ll have a good day :) - Sam Harris, too, thank you , I hope you're listening to this, and I'm making sense? - thank you to you, I can t wait to hear more of this, too? "Make sense" - Sam
Transcript
00:00:10.880
Just a note to say that if you're hearing this, you are not currently on our subscriber
00:00:14.680
feed and will only be hearing the first part of this conversation.
00:00:18.440
In order to access full episodes of the Making Sense Podcast, you'll need to subscribe at
00:00:24.140
There you'll find our private RSS feed to add to your favorite podcatcher, along with
00:00:30.520
We don't run ads on the podcast, and therefore it's made possible entirely through the support
00:00:35.900
So if you enjoy what we're doing here, please consider becoming one.
00:00:46.760
So today we have my first live podcast, officially, in Seattle with Brett Weinstein.
00:00:53.520
I introduce Brett on stage, but Brett is the biologist who is at the center of the Evergreen
00:01:01.920
We don't go into as much detail as we might have, because Evergreen is just an hour outside
00:01:07.340
of Seattle, and many people in the audience were well aware of what happened there.
00:01:12.620
It did make national news, and it was the most visible, apart from what happened to Nicholas
00:01:19.680
Christakis at Yale, of these recent moral panics on college campuses.
00:01:24.060
But briefly what happened there is they traditionally had what they called a day of absence, where
00:01:30.880
people of color would stay away from campus for a day to make their absence felt.
00:01:37.180
And Brett, as an extremely liberal and progressive member of the biology department, was always
00:01:43.820
But last year they decided to flip the logic of this event.
00:01:47.180
And rather than people of color deciding to stay away, they decided to tell white people
00:01:53.680
that they were not welcome on campus on that day.
00:01:58.440
Absence wasn't compulsory, but it was highly recommended.
00:02:03.840
Now Brett noticed immediately that this was not quite the same ethical and political message,
00:02:11.020
and said as much in an email to administrators and his colleagues.
00:02:18.920
So there's much more about that online, and you can see Brett's other interviews on other
00:02:26.980
But suffice it to say, this was an extremely bizarre and unproductive self-immolation of a
00:02:36.040
And Brett and his wife, also a professor there at Evergreen, have since been forced out.
00:02:43.720
We talk about it a little, but that's the necessary backstory to today's conversation.
00:02:50.620
And now I bring you audio of the Seattle event with Brett Weinstein.
00:02:54.500
Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Sam Harris.
00:03:29.940
The fact that I can put a date on the calendar and you all show up, it's just insane to me.
00:03:42.100
And another thing I won't take for granted is that people like this actually want to talk
00:03:52.680
Though I've released some audio from those events with Richard Dawkins, you should know
00:03:58.140
this is actually my first official live podcast.
00:04:02.600
But my guest tonight is a biologist who focuses on big questions.
00:04:12.940
He really, he's done narrow research on things like the evolution of cancer and senescence and
00:04:22.060
But he also focuses on how an understanding of evolution can actually inform our lives and
00:04:31.480
He's also become, in the aftermath of what is now known as the Evergreen Scandal, a truly
00:04:38.440
wise and articulate defender of human rationality and free speech.
00:04:59.540
So Brett, I've been wanting to talk to you for some time.
00:05:02.300
As some people here must know, I'm friends with your brother who did my podcast about a
00:05:06.880
year ago, and your brother is this polymathic, very articulate, very interesting man.
00:05:15.100
And then I saw a bit of you on YouTube, and you are also this polymathic, very articulate,
00:05:27.580
So I think, since we're in Seattle, the Evergreen Scandal is probably a noun phrase that people
00:05:35.820
But I think we should talk about what happened there, because it's a point of entry into
00:05:42.560
I have actually seen it described by another name, the Brett Weinstein debacle.
00:05:49.180
Yes, so let me give you the very brief version.
00:05:52.420
And I should say, it's a story that's very easy to get wrong.
00:05:54.840
And the press, even when they are well-intentioned, often get the story wrong, I'm not going to
00:06:00.640
bore you with the details of what actually happened.
00:06:09.600
He set in motion a committee to study the question of equity on our campus and to propose some
00:06:21.520
And that committee advanced an elaborate proposal, sweeping changes to the college that was, in
00:06:31.700
my opinion, a threat to the ability of the college to continue to function, certainly as
00:06:42.200
And I objected to it, which was more or less part of my job as a faculty member.
00:06:47.160
And I said, we really have to talk about this proposal.
00:06:50.040
And there was steadfast refusal to have that discussion.
00:06:53.580
And as I continued to insist that we have that discussion, it raised the hackles of some
00:07:01.380
other faculty members who became more and more aggressive in challenging me in faculty meetings,
00:07:14.480
But I'm led to believe that one faculty member in particular set a bunch of students in motion,
00:07:20.700
students that I had never met, who arrived at my classroom and erupted into protest, which
00:07:30.580
And instead of backing down or running away, I tried to reason with them.
00:07:36.140
And when those videos were placed online by the protesters, the reaction was not what
00:07:45.340
Many people were, I guess, impressed that I had tried to talk to them rationally about the
00:07:52.520
questions that were at the heart of the equity issue on our campus.
00:07:58.720
And that set in motion a debate about what the rights of people to protest are in the
00:08:05.520
context of a college campus and what equity means and how we might pursue it.
00:08:11.220
And what was the reaction of your fellow faculty?
00:08:14.340
How much support or lack of support did you get?
00:08:21.320
It looks very different on the inside of the college than the outside.
00:08:24.600
On the inside, I got tremendous support from many people, but it was almost silent.
00:08:31.160
And many of the people who were telling me that they were supportive were telling me that
00:08:36.020
they wouldn't speak publicly about their position because they were afraid of what would happen.
00:08:45.300
Yeah, although the word cowardice does come to mind.
00:08:47.360
It's a word that I refused to use at first because I don't think their fears were unjustified.
00:08:55.360
And it's, you know, it's hard to, it's hard to judge other people in that way.
00:09:01.500
Although their fears were not unjustified if they came out one at a time or only one came
00:09:10.220
It's the fact that you were out there all alone that led to this.
00:09:20.200
I mean, I'm thinking it's something that I've often said of the Salman Rushdie affair.
00:09:26.420
The reason why he had to go into hiding for 10 years, obviously, is a different circumstance.
00:09:30.460
But the whole problem was that there weren't 10,000 Salman Rushdies the next day.
00:09:36.800
How do we get that collective response tuned up?
00:09:44.560
But people need to level up with respect to game theory.
00:09:48.880
And so the colleagues who were opposed to these false and dangerous equity proposals
00:09:56.720
were responding to their narrow short-term interests.
00:10:02.560
In other words, they were correctly perceiving that they would be stigmatized and demonized
00:10:07.720
What they were not realizing was that that will come for them in the end anyway.
00:10:12.420
And so it really isn't a question of whether or not to expose yourself to that danger.
00:10:16.560
It's whether or not to group together and face that danger and maybe survive it
00:10:21.360
or to expose yourself to being picked off one by one over time.
00:10:25.100
And so there's a problem that I call the activist dilemma, which is really a version of a tragedy of the commons
00:10:34.160
or a free rider problem in which everybody wants a problem solved.
00:10:40.360
But the best deal is to stand on the sidelines and let somebody else take the risk or the cost of solving it
00:10:46.880
and to get the benefit of that solution anyway.
00:10:49.160
And in the end, that's the undoing of the coalitions that you're imagining should form to prevent these things.
00:10:58.060
The right app would just get everyone to go at the same moment.
00:11:02.100
So what were the ideas at the core of this problem?
00:11:10.880
Well, I think it has to do with a couple of different problems.
00:11:17.700
I mean, I've come to view the folks who protested at Evergreen as an insurgency,
00:11:26.000
which to me means that you don't take them literally, that they are actually engaged in a tactical action.
00:11:32.520
And what they say they are up to is not necessarily what even they believe that they are up to.
00:11:36.880
They are trying to accomplish something, and they're actually quite powerful in doing what they're doing.
00:11:43.180
So it's a little bit hard to know how you deal with a movement that says it is about certain objectives.
00:11:56.820
Equity is something that most people, I'm sure most people in this auditorium,
00:12:00.980
would imagine themselves to be in favor of equity.
00:12:03.560
The problem is, if you build a rule into your personality where you say anything that is positive from the perspective of equity
00:12:11.900
is therefore something that I am in favor of, then you can be easily manipulated,
00:12:16.580
because all that has to happen is somebody needs to wrap that label around something noxious,
00:12:21.460
and you may not detect until too late that it isn't what you signed up for.
00:12:27.180
What's more, this sets the stage for your cognitive dissonance to be weaponized against you,
00:12:33.480
because once you've signed up, once you've protested in favor of something called equity,
00:12:38.400
and then it turns out that it isn't what it was advertised as,
00:12:44.260
do you admit that you were wrong to favor this thing in the first place,
00:12:48.680
or do you double down on protesting even further?
00:12:51.820
And I've seen a lot of people who simply got involved in this movement
00:12:57.680
because it was labeled in a way that sounded good to them
00:13:03.440
because at the point they begin to detect that it isn't what it's supposed to be,
00:13:07.240
it's too late for them to figure out how to back out.
00:13:13.700
Is it an accident that you happen to be a biologist,
00:13:15.780
or is there something about biology that presents an especially good target for this kind of confusion?
00:13:25.780
I've been teaching and thinking very deeply about questions,
00:13:32.240
and what role those game theoretic parameters and predicaments have played in human history.
00:13:39.840
And so, really, this particular instance was a variation on a theme,
00:13:44.940
and it was quite plain to me what was going on.
00:13:48.440
And the question is, could I make it plain to enough people
00:13:51.160
who hadn't yet chosen sides to avert a disaster?
00:13:56.160
And the answer, with respect to Evergreen, is no.
00:13:58.860
On the other hand, with respect to the outside world,
00:14:01.680
it does appear that we have a much healthier conversation on that topic now
00:14:07.700
I mean, there's topics here that I think we should touch
00:14:11.560
because they're of such critical importance to our national conversation
00:14:18.020
and there are topics that it seems like we should be able to talk about rationally
00:14:35.200
that it's just like everything's covered with plutonium.
00:14:39.540
Let's talk about, first, the concept of race, right,
00:14:42.180
which was at the center of this disruption on campus.
00:14:46.320
As a biological concept, is it a valid concept?
00:14:51.060
Okay, we're about to get into serious danger here.
00:14:55.480
Well, I have actually, yeah, I have changed my tune on this question.
00:15:09.180
but the term race is actually close to indefensible.
00:15:15.700
is not the one that we are told biology has unearthed.
00:15:19.180
We are told that there is more variation within races than between races,
00:15:26.460
That actually, mathematically, essentially has to be true.
00:15:29.200
It says nothing one way or the other about the reality of races.
00:15:49.620
then this is not a biological concept we're talking about.
00:16:08.680
The real term that we should be using is population.
00:16:16.040
and we don't get into one-drop rule kind of shenanigans surrounding it.
00:16:20.340
So I would say if you're having a technical conversation,
00:16:26.140
and then we can talk about what the meaning of population is.
00:16:29.660
I would say there's a higher-level version of that term, too,
00:16:32.980
which is even more useful thinking evolutionarily,
00:16:41.340
So a lineage is more useful because it is a fractal,
00:16:53.060
And so you and all of your descendants are a lineage.
00:16:59.460
which includes the lineage we just talked about,
00:17:10.560
And so what we call races are typically populations,
00:17:15.160
and those populations are one level in that hierarchy
00:17:28.720
So what happened in Rwanda with Hutus and Tutsis
00:17:39.360
They were arbitrary based on phenotypic characteristics
00:17:45.380
So is a family a similar concept to race or lineage here?
00:18:00.000
So you and your wife and all of your descendants
00:18:08.800
Yes, essentially the theme of what you're saying is right.
00:18:12.720
That as we step up to larger and larger collections
00:18:21.420
They evolve in the same way that families are capable of
00:18:28.480
But the borders aren't necessarily easily defined.
00:18:32.480
And there's no easily defined borders of a species either.
00:18:38.000
Well, there is a most recent common ancestor of all humans.
00:18:43.960
That does not mean that that was the first human
00:18:49.240
to observe this person that you could recognize them as such.
00:18:52.140
But the important thing to realize is for some reason we have a bias.
00:18:58.700
We tend to think that evolutionary dynamics ought to function
00:19:06.080
And there's no reason that that has to be true.
00:19:10.620
We cannot define species in a way that recovers all of the things
00:19:17.980
And it actually becomes particularly broken when we get near human beings.
00:19:25.520
is of no consequence one way or the other to evolutionary dynamics.
00:19:29.200
They are evolving and lineages are diverging into sublineages
00:19:37.660
well, they're definitely two different species.
00:19:39.940
But on the road to being definitely two different species,
00:19:46.520
So we shouldn't expect evolution necessarily to make our life easy.
00:19:53.040
What we should understand is that it is a process that does not think.
00:19:58.100
And what it simply does is present us with representatives
00:20:02.600
that did a better job of getting here than competitors that did a worse job.
00:20:07.860
And to the extent that you are a member of many lineages at once,
00:20:13.700
The process doesn't need to be able to say you are one of these
00:20:18.480
It just needs to simply continually select that subset of lineages
00:20:28.200
Is it that the one fact that seems to keep coming up
00:21:00.200
And these genes govern many of the things we care about.
00:21:04.960
You know, anything you can name about a human mind
00:21:10.860
these vary and they vary in very predictable ways.
00:21:26.640
And it would be a miracle, correct me if I'm wrong,
00:21:57.460
that I personally, having thought about it a great deal,
00:22:00.620
having traveled in all different parts of the world,
00:22:12.940
I think the fear is born of the following observation.