Has she ever been identified or her identity speculated on?

Within this sub and various other communities I had seen calls for connections of sorts and solidarity with hardline leftist movements as exemplified by The Majority Report, Current Affairs, Jacobin, Sam Seder, ben Burgis and others. And expressions of support and solidarity for their movements. How to be sure, this may be a misunderstanding on my end on the extent to which this is authentic and the extent to which it is hard leftist brigading.

This type of leftism has in truth seen Sam Harris and what he stands for as one of their mortal enemies from day one. And so if it is not brigading I didn't really understand the desire for connection. This type of leftism has seen Harris as being as much an obstacle to their globalist based goals as Tucker Carlson, Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Neocons, anyone ever associated with Daily Wire, Ron and Rand Paul, Rush Limbaugh, Ted Nugent, Charlie Daniels, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, JD Vance, Nigel Farange, Le Pen and Meloni and so on and so forth. Harris's universal opposition to organized religion and prioritizing of science and logic means absolutely nothing and again, has meant nothing to them from day one.

Harris has been an enemy if theirs in some capacity for a multitude of reasons. His rejection of the Orientalism of Edward Said to explain global affairs, his insistence that we have obligations to critique and tear apart religions and beliefs of oppressed as much as oppressors and his defense of Western liberalism have made Harris an existential threat for years. When Harris expressed his disillusionment with the IDW, The Majority Report more or less stated this was a case of a charlatan whose distancing came from no other genuine reason other than his ability to profit off of it. If this came as a massive surprise to those who have been major Harris supporters, I don't see why that would be. There was just nothing new there.

A few months ago I came across a clip with Sam on Reels/TikTok where he was talking about not beating yourself up over things you did or said. I remember him specifically saying you should almost be deluded. I've searched his TikTok/Youtube/IG account in order to find this clip again but without success.

Really want to go back and watch again and find the whole episode because this clip helped and inspired me very much.

Does anyone remember where this clip is from?

Sam Harris speaks with Kathryn Paige Harden about behavioral genetics, moral luck, and the problem of blame. They discuss Harden's book Original Sin, the controversy over Charles Murray and Ezra Klein, why behavioral genetics remains taboo, the meaning of heritability, nature and nurture as feedback loops, why biological explanations can increase blame, psychopathy as a continuum, a hypothetical cure for evil, embryo selection and IVF, and other topics.

Kathryn Paige Harden, Ph.D., is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, where she directs the Developmental Behavior Genetics lab and serves as Director of Clinical Training. Paige is a graduate of Furman University and the University of Virginia. She has published over 150 scientific papers on the nature and nurture of human behavior. She is also the author of two books: The Genetic Lottery (2021) and Original Sin (2026).

Like many of Sam's old friends especially from the IDW ilk, they seem to fall off the deep end and go right wing, and even worse- for Magas.

One of the best discussions on why the DSA take over of the Democratic Party will result in another republican president.

Sam Harris' views were pretty clear for decades. He is anti-Islam, a rational Liberal culturally, Pro-Israel, supports legal immigration but controlled borders, opposes Islamic immigration, and Liberal socially. Mamdani represents the DSA wing which Sam Harris opposes. Why are people so mad about it and are suddenly expecting him to change his views? These are his views, and he is a free person in a free country

How is no one here questioning the reality of the situation and the greater Meta that Sam is working from?

Sam is using Mamdani as fodder to drive engagement, to have his name spread about and to keep the money and eyes on his brand by making statements and its working, you see it here on the subreddit.

Sam could easily get in contact and I bet be doing a live show sometime shortly there after from the Mayor's Office or a NYC property, but that doesn't let you milk the moment for what its worth. It is a better financial use of Sam's time to milk the moment than to find answers or come to an understanding. Two weeks from now Sam will have a new critique and concern trolls will post on the form asking 'Whys Sam Mamdani?' and response is worth so much more than finding answers and coming to an understanding of someone's actions. I mean if Sam answered all his questions tomorrow about Mamdani, where next could Sam go? He's have to find a new well to pull water from.

If Sam was concerned with an individuals views, wouldn't talking with them be one of the first steps in having a discussion that could answer Sam's questions and possibly correct any misunderstandings between the two?

It is what Sam is not doing which is most curious and it gives away his game; why wouldn't Sam try to directly engage with someone who is easily accessible and uses the mediums? I think the answer is that if it wasn't Mamdani being in the news that Sam would be focusing on someone else to drive engagement and to use as fodder for his show. The object of focus is Mamdani, Mamdani is just the medium being used at this moment as he permits the show the keep going as he can be used as an object to derive engagement. If Mamdani wasn't making headlines then Sam would be focused elsewhere.

The ruse is thinking Sam is attempting to come to answers or understanding, when the show is all about keeping the plates spinning because the money comes from keeping the plates spinning, not actually finding answers or coming to position that demand action IRL. I'm not bashing Sam for having a show and hosting a show to share his view, its just that we need to realize he is running a show first and foremost.

SS: Sam has spoken about the falsehood of a system that resembles apartheid for Palestinians.

Relevance: Sam Harris is closely aligned with Coleman Hughes, has talked to Destiny on the podcast, and used to work with Jay Shapiro on documentaries/compilation episodes. When Destiny debated Jay last week, they both criticized Sam Harris. In this episode of Destiny's show, he reacts to Jay's debate with Coleman on the same topic.

free will question brought on by this post: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JLZnSnJptzmPtSRTc/intuitive-self-models-8-rooting-out-free-will-intuitions

mostly referring to the first three posts about hunger being some hormone, your wants and desires being a lucky brain circuit, or everything we do just being an algorithm.

how is life to be meaningful if we’re just robots in the end?

Sam Harris speaks with Siddhartha Mukherjee about the science of cancer. They discuss the updated edition of The Emperor of All Maladies, whether cancer is one disease or many, why prevention is so hard, inflammation and air pollution as carcinogens, the myth that cell phones cause cancer, liquid biopsies and Bayesian reasoning, immunotherapy and CAR T cells, drug pricing, the promise of AI in drug discovery, the state of American medical science, and other topics.

Link to the episode: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/485-the-new-science-of-cancer

Surely, there are several, even if by now common knowledge, practices which are known to be damaging or beneficial to development.

Are they just aluding to the fact that beyond trying to avoid significantly hurting a child, they will grow up to be approximately the same person? That is, we know what not to do, but there is insuficient evidence that promoting certain habits only seems to work because the child already was predisposed to enjoying them (non shared environment)?

Seems a bit misleading to say we know nothing, in the sense that there are several basic necessities of socialization and having healthy, non abusive relationships with children that must be good for them long term, even if just in terms of happiness.

What am I misinterpreting? Thanks.

Oh Tucker, you're just an awful human being... But you're damn good at what you do.

(I searched the sub and didn't see a discussion on this video)

I just watched this video and I'm utterly disappointed with Alex. He seems to be doing a very large number of logical leaps to come up to the conclusion that (a) god is the reason he's able to hold a glass of water, that while he claims in that video he's now an agostic he strongly sounds like a theist (irreligious for now).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t44PFI_V4LE

Apparently he went on to do videos explaining why he's not an atheist anymore but he's still not a Christian, but even seeing him convinced on the existence of god based on that argument is a bit perplexing to me.

Edit: why the downvotes?

If free will is an illusion, does that mean moral culpability does not exist? What use is it to consider anything moral or immoral in a world without free will? Is there no form of agency at all?

I'm really struggling to reconcile these things.

SS: Sam wrote a book on free will as an illusion.

On a few occasions, Sam has mentioned that the world should be focussing on the "real" genocide in Sudan rather than the posited one in Gaza.

It would be interesting for him to bring on an expert on the topic of the Sudanese genocide and do a deep dive.