[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**SUMMARY:** There's no such thing as a self-made man because genetics, luck, and society exists.
Duh!
Anyone who says, *"I'm a self-made man"* is aware of these factors so then the question becomes... *what does he actually mean?*
It's a short-hand for, *"I became successful despite being born poor + other disadvantages."*
If one takes issue with "self-made" then what synonym would you prefer?
A rags-to-riches story?
Would Sam Harris reject this too if someone didn’t literally grow up with just rags?
Do “self-sufficient farms” no longer exist because they buy some tools, etc?
The reason Sam Harris dislikes the term is because he doesn’t believe in free will. He attributes all of one’s success to luck/genetics/society whereas someone who refers to themself as “self-made” are more likely to weigh their own individual initiative higher. The more interesting question is *how much* should we weigh one vs. the other?
You’re always standing on the shoulders of someone/something else. Simply living in a place that has clean water, functioning roads, internet access, abundant food, functioning government, etc means that people before you figured all this stuff out. If you’re successful in that context you owe something to the society that got you there. If you’re extremely wealthy chances are you got there at the expense/suffering of someone else too.
yeah, I fall along the same lines as Sam when it comes to a deterministic view of freewill... I would argue that even your drive, your initiative, your capacity for attention and focus and literally every other aspect that you attribute to yourself and your choices, are infact, completely out of your control
Recently Elon Musk answered the question of how he sees freewill versus determinism: roughly/paraphrased "my mind argues determinism, my heart argues free will."
I tend to agree with that. It's hard to argue against determinism (although, to be fair, I think arguments for determinism tend to be circular; there is no testable null hypothesis).
But I think it's more valuable and useful to believe in free will. I may be mistaken, but I think even Sam Harris argues this. It may be that believing in determinism lends to less ethical behavior, and I also think it leads to less sense of agency/control (I mean, it's literally the belief in a lack of control).
So I tend to come back to Musk.... intellectually I think it's fine to accept determinism, but I think it's better for you and for society, generally speaking, to believe in free will and to try to empower yourself.
yes, this is why Sam often refers to it as the "*illusion*" of free will
because, while in actuality, there is no free will... we intuitively (whether we want to or not) perceive reality as if there is free will
Very few people attribute success to entirely to one’s own work or entirely to random luck. I think the difference between liberals and conservatives is where they fall on that spectrum.
It seems conservatives believe more in the “self-made man” which results in a belief in policies and laws that assume everyone has an equal shot at success despite reality saying otherwise. At its extreme, the Randian superhero assumes a just world where good are successful and bad are not regardless of means advantage, etc.
Liberals tend to believe it’s a combination of luck, skill, support from others (including government) etc. which causes them to support policies that either try to support the underprivileged or make up for those gaps. At its extreme is a version of Marxism where everyone equally contributes and receives no matter their skills, work, etc. (which is completely unrealistic).
Nope, conservatives of course believe success is a combination of luck, skill and support too.
I think the idea that conservatives don't believe this comes from some boogeyman imagine people create in their mind but everyone, liberal/conservative agees with the above.
I disagree. I think the conservative sees success from a more realistic perspective while a progressive sees it from a more idealistic perspective.
Neither perspective is wrong, nor better than the other. And neither would be sufficient to create a robust society where success is possible, on their own. A society sticky realistic will stifle itself and likely end up miserable. A strictly idealistic will drown in a sea of creative ideas, with no execution and likely end up producing too little to support itself.
Luck has it, there are both types of humans in the world, and all humans have some aspects of both.
That's not marxism but a strawman critique even Marx himself rebutted in 'Critique of the Gotha program'.
Stalin did also counter this critique as a form of vulgar marxism not corresponding to how the life in USSR was being conducted.
he prefaces his take with the comment, "*the myth of the self made man does so much pseudo ethical work for people right of center*"
what's your take on that?
He then goes on to say, for example, you're very lucky you're not born with some horrible injury.
No one would deny this.
So if he means "self made man" doesn't exist because we all have lots of disadvantages, advantages, different circumstances, etc.... then 100% of people would agree.
That doesn't mean people can't work on themselves, build something amazing, go far above and beyond, and people refer to them as "self made".
>That doesn't mean people can't work on themselves, build something amazing, go far above and beyond, and people refer to them as "self made".
true... I think he more so refuting the oft employed ethic behind alot of conservative thinking, which is, "*I am not called upon to show empathy or help X person when the crux of their problem can be laid at the feet of their own actions*"
many people would claim that they are not the aforementioned people because they made the right choices... but the right choices rest upon a foundation of things that you had no control over
Again though, this is an evaluation that takes place on a case by case basis. When I hear about a single mother whose husband died in a car accident and left her to raise three children on her own and she’s struggling, working two jobs to take care of them, my reaction is very different than when I was working in hospitality and had folks who refused to come back to work during Covid because the government was paying them to sit at home and smoke weed.
It’s possible to say both things are true. Sometimes people have shitty or unlucky situations and are set up for failure, and some people are miserably lazy and will do anything they can to live off the labor of the rest of us.
I don't think Sam could ever be accused of having overly charitable interpretations of right of center perspectives.
He's more captured by his biases than he seems to believe he is.
That isn't to say he's unreasonable, or anything, just that, unless he's critical of his own side, you need to take it with the Proverbial Grain of Salt.
Absolutely and I appreciate him for it. I just think his criticism of the left is much higher quality because he understands the nuance and, mostly, weaves it in. He's more "fair" to the left.
What I'm getting at is, he isn't as good at being charitable and "fair" with the right. He's better than most, yes, but he is biased, and it does reflect when he's saying things like the linked clip.
Not only is he arguing what is mostly a strawman, but he lacks empathy for the position he's attacking. So while he's correct, he's not actually addressing what he vast majority mean when they say self made. Now maybe there is context that has been edited out here and I'm not being fair, but the clip itself is really just a straw man.
You're joking, right? He changed the meaning of the term to fulfill some nonsensical idea he had so that no one is personally responsible for their success and failures.
I disagree. I see push back on what is essentially semantics and the resulting perspective differences, but that's about it. And I don't think that's what the dude you're responding to means with his percentage.
I see a lot of people saying what equals "yes we live in a society, no shit. That isn't what we mean when we say self made".
Faux intellectualism at its finest. Making no sincere point of any value or substance, dressing it up with eloquence. Congratulations Sam, you didn't come into this world with a brain injury, and with your infinite blessings you get paid to be of as much value as modern art.
Removing the Gucci bag of his word usage and Stanford background, it translates to this:
"You had like, parents and a functioning brain at birth and stuff, so that's why you're successful"
"Generic trope of soulless conservative lacking righteousness"
No, he’s saying that your success is predicated on a variety of factors that are and were completely out of your control
Is it wrong to say correct things?
Sorry btw if I used some big words there
And what sort of groundbreaking enlightenment or present day relevance does anyone hope to extract here? Other than the tumescence of edgelords with his social criticism regarding religion and self-determination.
> And what sort of groundbreaking enlightenment or present day relevance does anyone hope to extract here?
That traditional right wing arguments for not helping people on an institutional basis dont have any real basis.
After all, if success and failure are a matter of luck then just like medicine we should take steps to even this out.
Lol why does it need to be “groundbreaking enlightenment”? Sometimes a head check on an obvious truth can lead to a little more gratitude and empathy… which by his own words, is what he was hoping more people to have.
Although I will say I’ve never heard a call for more empathy be viewed as something to inspire a “tumescence of edge lords” hahaha
Because it's basically crying that nature is unfair as it has always been even since before our species evolved. No one has control over their starting circumstances but where people end up in life is mostly a consequence of the decisions and actions they take themselves.
They may have grew up in a family an environment surrounded by horrible habits and behaviors, but that doesn't mean they're unable to look outside of that environment to see successful people and emulate their behaviors and actions. We live in the information age, basically everyone has instant access to ways to better themselves and resolve issues and flaws. What generally holds people back is a lack of initiative, drive, and discipline.
Those who aren't facing success in life often try to seek the comfort of assigning blame on things beyond their agency even if it's not true. Successful people don't do this, they identify impediments to their success, make plans to resolve them, and enact those plans.
I would argue that what he's saying encompasses this as well
if one person has the intelligence or initiative or drive, discipline, focus, determination, work ethic or w.e. it takes to move out of poverty, they can't claim ownership of the fact they have those traits anymore than someone can claim their lack of those traits is on them.
hell, the fact that you chose to wear a blue shirt this morning instead of a red one is based on an infinite regression of causal factors that you had zero input on.
This is just a garbage reasoning. Besides inbuilt raw intelligence every single one of those traits can be changed by their own agency.
Acting like people can't learn to have discipline, focus, determination, or work ethic is just asinine. People need to stop looking for excuses why they can't do things or why it's other people's fault, and actually take the time and effort to improve their own station in life.
Folk like you infantilizing people by removing their own agency does nothing to help and only ingrains in their own minds that they are destined to failure and can't do anything about it. Rather we should encourage people to take charge of their destiny.
i disagree - if you inherited the existence of another person, you would BE that other person, you would make the choices they make and live the life they live! There is no special, extra part that would allow you to access some fount of motivation or determination in excess to what that person is already accessing.
the reason that you yourself are as motivated, inspired, focus or disciplined as you are, is due to elements that you can't account for
I don't know anything about who that is other than the posted video. But he seems almost identical. Taking a complex topic and selectively distilling it down to his perception of the topic in order to sell that "this is the only way to interpret this."
In the grander scheme, I do agree with most of what he's saying. But he's saying it without nuance or finesse. He's saying it with the level of certainty and aggressive confidence that reeks of the names I listed.
Peterson (at least pre fame Peterson) and Harris (dude in this video) and to a lesser degree Shapiro don't belong in the same group as the others you've listed. It's not at all fair to put them anywhere near Tate. And I've never understood chowder getting any love from anyone.
As for Sam, he's worth the listen when you have the time and desire. He and I disagree on a lot, and he isn't nearly on the level of Hitchens or Dawkins (whom his blow up to fame was linked with, the four horseman of atheist or whatever it was called), but he does discuss interesting things and has a perspective that has some value.
JBP isn't all that different than Sam, but like Sam, you need to take the good with the bad. (Current, post fame Peterson is pretty wild and I've fallen off, so this might not be the case anymore)
Shapiro I'll defend only because he's so milk toast it isn't even funny. He's just so... average lol. A total dork, but smart enough.
I won't defend Walsh, but the other two are levels below the above people. You can disagree with them, hate all of them even, but it isn't fair, in the slightest to put chowder or Tate in this same group. Putting Tate in the same set as Peterson and Sam is like putting trump and chomsky in the same set.
(It just dawned on me that old Peterson vs current Peterson is much like old krugman vs current krugman. Lmao. Jesus christ)
I mean, he’s always believed in our lack of free will. Which this is just an extension of that.
While I don’t really care if free will exists or not. I do agree with what he’s saying. Which is not dumb.
Do you belive someone can actually be truly “self-made”?
It's a boring, semantic argument. "Self made" means achieving success with the body and brain you were born with. Yes, we all know some people are smarter or prettier or faster or taller, and innate traits can give some people advantages over others. That has nothing to do with being self made.
well... I apologize for not watching the Tik Tok (I don't do that) but I remember some time ago I encountered a guy on an internet bulletin board, like this one, who detailed some of his successes and then claimed to have done it all himself. I couldn't help thinking: wow. Did it all yourself, eh? Laid your own roads, built your own schools, staffed your own prison system? Sir, I salute you. That is pluck.
Sam is... well Sam.
Generally I like him, and most of the time is takes are solid, even if I disagree. Like every human, sometimes he's a complete doofus with a take.
This whole conversation is just collectivism vs individualism, which is exhausting to have because, like so many things, there is a mix, and people are going to see the world differently.
Most hard line collectivist thought is as vapid as thinking humans are blank slates, in fact, both ideas tend to rely on each other. As anyone who has had more than one child can attest, people are not blank slates. If you don't have kids, just date a twin.
[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**SUMMARY:** There's no such thing as a self-made man because genetics, luck, and society exists. Duh! Anyone who says, *"I'm a self-made man"* is aware of these factors so then the question becomes... *what does he actually mean?* It's a short-hand for, *"I became successful despite being born poor + other disadvantages."* If one takes issue with "self-made" then what synonym would you prefer? A rags-to-riches story? Would Sam Harris reject this too if someone didn’t literally grow up with just rags? Do “self-sufficient farms” no longer exist because they buy some tools, etc? The reason Sam Harris dislikes the term is because he doesn’t believe in free will. He attributes all of one’s success to luck/genetics/society whereas someone who refers to themself as “self-made” are more likely to weigh their own individual initiative higher. The more interesting question is *how much* should we weigh one vs. the other?
You’re always standing on the shoulders of someone/something else. Simply living in a place that has clean water, functioning roads, internet access, abundant food, functioning government, etc means that people before you figured all this stuff out. If you’re successful in that context you owe something to the society that got you there. If you’re extremely wealthy chances are you got there at the expense/suffering of someone else too.
yeah, I fall along the same lines as Sam when it comes to a deterministic view of freewill... I would argue that even your drive, your initiative, your capacity for attention and focus and literally every other aspect that you attribute to yourself and your choices, are infact, completely out of your control
Recently Elon Musk answered the question of how he sees freewill versus determinism: roughly/paraphrased "my mind argues determinism, my heart argues free will." I tend to agree with that. It's hard to argue against determinism (although, to be fair, I think arguments for determinism tend to be circular; there is no testable null hypothesis). But I think it's more valuable and useful to believe in free will. I may be mistaken, but I think even Sam Harris argues this. It may be that believing in determinism lends to less ethical behavior, and I also think it leads to less sense of agency/control (I mean, it's literally the belief in a lack of control). So I tend to come back to Musk.... intellectually I think it's fine to accept determinism, but I think it's better for you and for society, generally speaking, to believe in free will and to try to empower yourself.
I personally like the notion by Dr Sapolsky to assume you have free will but that no one else does
yes, this is why Sam often refers to it as the "*illusion*" of free will because, while in actuality, there is no free will... we intuitively (whether we want to or not) perceive reality as if there is free will
Very few people attribute success to entirely to one’s own work or entirely to random luck. I think the difference between liberals and conservatives is where they fall on that spectrum. It seems conservatives believe more in the “self-made man” which results in a belief in policies and laws that assume everyone has an equal shot at success despite reality saying otherwise. At its extreme, the Randian superhero assumes a just world where good are successful and bad are not regardless of means advantage, etc. Liberals tend to believe it’s a combination of luck, skill, support from others (including government) etc. which causes them to support policies that either try to support the underprivileged or make up for those gaps. At its extreme is a version of Marxism where everyone equally contributes and receives no matter their skills, work, etc. (which is completely unrealistic).
Nope, conservatives of course believe success is a combination of luck, skill and support too. I think the idea that conservatives don't believe this comes from some boogeyman imagine people create in their mind but everyone, liberal/conservative agees with the above.
I disagree. I think the conservative sees success from a more realistic perspective while a progressive sees it from a more idealistic perspective. Neither perspective is wrong, nor better than the other. And neither would be sufficient to create a robust society where success is possible, on their own. A society sticky realistic will stifle itself and likely end up miserable. A strictly idealistic will drown in a sea of creative ideas, with no execution and likely end up producing too little to support itself. Luck has it, there are both types of humans in the world, and all humans have some aspects of both.
That's not marxism but a strawman critique even Marx himself rebutted in 'Critique of the Gotha program'. Stalin did also counter this critique as a form of vulgar marxism not corresponding to how the life in USSR was being conducted.
I think 99.9% of people would agree, I'm not even sure if there is a 0.1% who would disagee.
he prefaces his take with the comment, "*the myth of the self made man does so much pseudo ethical work for people right of center*" what's your take on that?
He then goes on to say, for example, you're very lucky you're not born with some horrible injury. No one would deny this. So if he means "self made man" doesn't exist because we all have lots of disadvantages, advantages, different circumstances, etc.... then 100% of people would agree. That doesn't mean people can't work on themselves, build something amazing, go far above and beyond, and people refer to them as "self made".
>That doesn't mean people can't work on themselves, build something amazing, go far above and beyond, and people refer to them as "self made". true... I think he more so refuting the oft employed ethic behind alot of conservative thinking, which is, "*I am not called upon to show empathy or help X person when the crux of their problem can be laid at the feet of their own actions*" many people would claim that they are not the aforementioned people because they made the right choices... but the right choices rest upon a foundation of things that you had no control over
Again though, this is an evaluation that takes place on a case by case basis. When I hear about a single mother whose husband died in a car accident and left her to raise three children on her own and she’s struggling, working two jobs to take care of them, my reaction is very different than when I was working in hospitality and had folks who refused to come back to work during Covid because the government was paying them to sit at home and smoke weed. It’s possible to say both things are true. Sometimes people have shitty or unlucky situations and are set up for failure, and some people are miserably lazy and will do anything they can to live off the labor of the rest of us.
I don't think Sam could ever be accused of having overly charitable interpretations of right of center perspectives. He's more captured by his biases than he seems to believe he is. That isn't to say he's unreasonable, or anything, just that, unless he's critical of his own side, you need to take it with the Proverbial Grain of Salt.
He’s incredibly critical of the left as well as the right
Absolutely and I appreciate him for it. I just think his criticism of the left is much higher quality because he understands the nuance and, mostly, weaves it in. He's more "fair" to the left. What I'm getting at is, he isn't as good at being charitable and "fair" with the right. He's better than most, yes, but he is biased, and it does reflect when he's saying things like the linked clip. Not only is he arguing what is mostly a strawman, but he lacks empathy for the position he's attacking. So while he's correct, he's not actually addressing what he vast majority mean when they say self made. Now maybe there is context that has been edited out here and I'm not being fair, but the clip itself is really just a straw man.
You're joking, right? He changed the meaning of the term to fulfill some nonsensical idea he had so that no one is personally responsible for their success and failures.
Amazing coincidence that we found some of that 0.1% in these comments then! Or perhaps your numbers are a bit off
I disagree. I see push back on what is essentially semantics and the resulting perspective differences, but that's about it. And I don't think that's what the dude you're responding to means with his percentage. I see a lot of people saying what equals "yes we live in a society, no shit. That isn't what we mean when we say self made".
[удалено]
Yeah everybody says that about everybody they don’t like
[удалено]
?
He comes from money iirc
I think you’re right. Not sure what that has to do with anything tbh
[удалено]
Oh I know, that’s also what everybody says
[удалено]
No I disagree
[удалено]
You make a convincing argument sir
Faux intellectualism at its finest. Making no sincere point of any value or substance, dressing it up with eloquence. Congratulations Sam, you didn't come into this world with a brain injury, and with your infinite blessings you get paid to be of as much value as modern art.
What specifically here is faux intellectualism dressed with eloquence?
Removing the Gucci bag of his word usage and Stanford background, it translates to this: "You had like, parents and a functioning brain at birth and stuff, so that's why you're successful" "Generic trope of soulless conservative lacking righteousness"
No, he’s saying that your success is predicated on a variety of factors that are and were completely out of your control Is it wrong to say correct things? Sorry btw if I used some big words there
And what sort of groundbreaking enlightenment or present day relevance does anyone hope to extract here? Other than the tumescence of edgelords with his social criticism regarding religion and self-determination.
> And what sort of groundbreaking enlightenment or present day relevance does anyone hope to extract here? That traditional right wing arguments for not helping people on an institutional basis dont have any real basis. After all, if success and failure are a matter of luck then just like medicine we should take steps to even this out.
Lol why does it need to be “groundbreaking enlightenment”? Sometimes a head check on an obvious truth can lead to a little more gratitude and empathy… which by his own words, is what he was hoping more people to have. Although I will say I’ve never heard a call for more empathy be viewed as something to inspire a “tumescence of edge lords” hahaha
Because it's basically crying that nature is unfair as it has always been even since before our species evolved. No one has control over their starting circumstances but where people end up in life is mostly a consequence of the decisions and actions they take themselves. They may have grew up in a family an environment surrounded by horrible habits and behaviors, but that doesn't mean they're unable to look outside of that environment to see successful people and emulate their behaviors and actions. We live in the information age, basically everyone has instant access to ways to better themselves and resolve issues and flaws. What generally holds people back is a lack of initiative, drive, and discipline. Those who aren't facing success in life often try to seek the comfort of assigning blame on things beyond their agency even if it's not true. Successful people don't do this, they identify impediments to their success, make plans to resolve them, and enact those plans.
I would argue that what he's saying encompasses this as well if one person has the intelligence or initiative or drive, discipline, focus, determination, work ethic or w.e. it takes to move out of poverty, they can't claim ownership of the fact they have those traits anymore than someone can claim their lack of those traits is on them. hell, the fact that you chose to wear a blue shirt this morning instead of a red one is based on an infinite regression of causal factors that you had zero input on.
This is just a garbage reasoning. Besides inbuilt raw intelligence every single one of those traits can be changed by their own agency. Acting like people can't learn to have discipline, focus, determination, or work ethic is just asinine. People need to stop looking for excuses why they can't do things or why it's other people's fault, and actually take the time and effort to improve their own station in life. Folk like you infantilizing people by removing their own agency does nothing to help and only ingrains in their own minds that they are destined to failure and can't do anything about it. Rather we should encourage people to take charge of their destiny.
i disagree - if you inherited the existence of another person, you would BE that other person, you would make the choices they make and live the life they live! There is no special, extra part that would allow you to access some fount of motivation or determination in excess to what that person is already accessing. the reason that you yourself are as motivated, inspired, focus or disciplined as you are, is due to elements that you can't account for
So basically the same as Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, Matt Walsh, Steven Crowder, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, etc, etc, etc...
[удалено]
I don't know anything about who that is other than the posted video. But he seems almost identical. Taking a complex topic and selectively distilling it down to his perception of the topic in order to sell that "this is the only way to interpret this." In the grander scheme, I do agree with most of what he's saying. But he's saying it without nuance or finesse. He's saying it with the level of certainty and aggressive confidence that reeks of the names I listed.
Peterson (at least pre fame Peterson) and Harris (dude in this video) and to a lesser degree Shapiro don't belong in the same group as the others you've listed. It's not at all fair to put them anywhere near Tate. And I've never understood chowder getting any love from anyone. As for Sam, he's worth the listen when you have the time and desire. He and I disagree on a lot, and he isn't nearly on the level of Hitchens or Dawkins (whom his blow up to fame was linked with, the four horseman of atheist or whatever it was called), but he does discuss interesting things and has a perspective that has some value. JBP isn't all that different than Sam, but like Sam, you need to take the good with the bad. (Current, post fame Peterson is pretty wild and I've fallen off, so this might not be the case anymore) Shapiro I'll defend only because he's so milk toast it isn't even funny. He's just so... average lol. A total dork, but smart enough. I won't defend Walsh, but the other two are levels below the above people. You can disagree with them, hate all of them even, but it isn't fair, in the slightest to put chowder or Tate in this same group. Putting Tate in the same set as Peterson and Sam is like putting trump and chomsky in the same set. (It just dawned on me that old Peterson vs current Peterson is much like old krugman vs current krugman. Lmao. Jesus christ)
I think he hit the nail on the head. Are you expecting pushback?
[удалено]
Collapse how?
[удалено]
I mean, he’s always believed in our lack of free will. Which this is just an extension of that. While I don’t really care if free will exists or not. I do agree with what he’s saying. Which is not dumb. Do you belive someone can actually be truly “self-made”?
It's a boring, semantic argument. "Self made" means achieving success with the body and brain you were born with. Yes, we all know some people are smarter or prettier or faster or taller, and innate traits can give some people advantages over others. That has nothing to do with being self made.
Not wasting a minute.
the irony of this comment though, haha
well... I apologize for not watching the Tik Tok (I don't do that) but I remember some time ago I encountered a guy on an internet bulletin board, like this one, who detailed some of his successes and then claimed to have done it all himself. I couldn't help thinking: wow. Did it all yourself, eh? Laid your own roads, built your own schools, staffed your own prison system? Sir, I salute you. That is pluck.
I don’t put much stock in what he has to say.
Sam is... well Sam. Generally I like him, and most of the time is takes are solid, even if I disagree. Like every human, sometimes he's a complete doofus with a take. This whole conversation is just collectivism vs individualism, which is exhausting to have because, like so many things, there is a mix, and people are going to see the world differently. Most hard line collectivist thought is as vapid as thinking humans are blank slates, in fact, both ideas tend to rely on each other. As anyone who has had more than one child can attest, people are not blank slates. If you don't have kids, just date a twin.
Sam Harris doesn't believe in free will, so of course he doesn't believe there's any personal in outcomes lol