Here is the quote from the article:

But here I made a transcript of what Sam Harris actually said in the podcast

He said the quotes about something completely different! Sam Harris was talking about universally accepted facts about heritability and IQ, but they inserted the quote after a controversial statement about group differences instead.

Harris mentions in the new podcast how this article has changed his life for the worse, and how it will affect his life for years to come, and probably that of his children too. This article that @kph3k co-wrote, and which contains the obvious and malicious misrepresentation.

Now @kph3k is on Sam Harris' podcast, and he brings up this article. And does she apologize? No! She just goes on to present her argument about group differences. What kind of behavior is that?

Even leaving aside the misrepresentation, the characterization of the views of Harris and @charlesmurray is unfair and incorrect.

The argument is about whether it is to "peddle racist pseudo-science" to claim that genetics plays some role in the racial group differences we observe in various outcomes, such as IQ.

But not only is it not pseudo-science - it is trivially true. Genetics plays a role in all outcomes in life, and racial groups differ in many ways genetically, so of course these genetic differences play some role.

I assume this is not what she disagrees about. Maybe she thinks that it is the sum of the effect of the variants is exactly equal when added up. But as @SamHarrisOrg points out, this is astronomically unlikely.

Ok, maybe she thinks that the sum of the effect of the variants have some difference, but we don't know the direction. But we do know the direction, because the sum of the effect of the variants is what we actually observe in the real world.

Or maybe she means that if we imagine a similar world, but without the history of slavery and without racism, the impact could be different. Now we are into some very hypothetical scenarios, with unclear implications.

But still, we could even take something simple like differences in vitamin D. More dark-skinned people have difficulty with generating enough vitamin D at high lattitude, and this probably affects IQ to some none-zero degree.

Maybe this is still not what she means. OK. But then what is she thinking of exactly? I think that before well-intentioned people like @SamHarrisOrg are unfairly smeared, it should at least be clearly defined what the disagreement is about.

That is, it should be stated in a way such that it is hypothetically quantifiable what the disagreement is about, and where its not solely a difference in mood affiliation.

Finally I will note that @kph3k is a great researcher, and I agree with her about many things.

For example when she offers this great quote: "I think it is a grave mistake to stake claims for equity, or inclusion, or justice, or equality on the absence of genetic difference."

I also had the same objection as her recently in a discussion with Turkheimer: https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/1277621911825141760?s=20

And I tentatively look forward to her upcoming work in this important area.

But she behaved badly here, and she should've apologized.