you know when you have those moments in your life that everything turns? like a light is turned on or the blinds are removed? this lecture is that moment for me. Thank you.
Seen most of his lectures on RUclips, maybe all of them, many times over. I can honestly say that Dr. Sapolsky has hit the nail on the head in providing evidence towards so many of my own thoughts and theories as to how I perceived my behavior in society and into human behavior in society. As a critical thinker, his arguments appear well documented, unbiased, clear and very sensible. He's also a joy to listen to. He has a unique sense of humor and I love to see anyone with as much enthusiasm and fascination for a craft as Dr. Sapolsky does. He has definitely changed how I view and will continue to view human behavior for both myself and that of society forever. Wish there was more lectures though. I feel ingratiated never the less to have the opportunity to watch a Stanford lecture in general, at no cost; no complaints.
It does appear to me that Dr. Sapolsky places a lot of importance on the neurobiology over the psychology of human behavior, but that might be because of the course he's lecturing.
The OCD part hit very close to home. When I was a child / teenager, I had intrusive thoughts that I cleansed with prayer rituals constantly. That eventually stopped, but my OCD has expressed itself differently over the years. Looking back, this lead me to think that religion lends itself well to OCD as a framework, but I hadn't considered that it might actually be the other way around. Uh, anyway... Obligatory Sapolsky is awesome comment: Sapolsky is such a boss! :P
my name is Paul, and I find I'm here for absolutely no other reason than I find Sapolsky's lectures interesting.......I have temporal lobe epilepsy and find myself going to church with no faith at all.....fucking AMAZING!
Over and over again, during my enjoyment of the lecture ( again, thank you for posting this!!!), I would blurt out what Dr. Sapolsky was about to say, and when he would say it, I would clap my hands and explode, " YES!!". I'm glad that I was able to watch and enjoy this without being a distraction in the classroom. This is pure mental protein, not mind candy but mind fiber, healthy fuel for the brain. Loving it!!!
I've just read the small novel that is recommended at the end of this video, "Lying Awake" by Mark Salzman. It is beautifully written, and extremely sensitively told from the point of view of the Carmelite who has to choose whether or not to give up this transitory glory of seizure visions in her life. It is clear that the doctor does not understand it the way she does, including the aspect of suffering, and it doesn't make an easy statement on the nature of what is gained or lost in the "cure."
So this is the 'final lecture' that he mentioned he decided not to record/post on the official Stanford version of this course (ruclips.net/video/NNnIGh9g6fA/видео.html).. I always wondered what it was, and I'm sure glad I got to see it!
Thank you thank you thank you. I've been looking for this lecture for quite some time. And I am in shock of how this relates to me personally as an SPD - I didn't expect this.
Yes -- he is a scientist without political agenda, or not nearly enough to disrupt his integrity as a researcher. He also remembers what it's like to be the one that got away from the observant community -- it can be sensitive or even traumatic -- and remains respectful.
In regards to this lecture I suggest all to read Shamans Among Us by Dr. Polimeni. For all those who will read I will say ahead of time, you`re welcome. :)
I had the severe form of OCD and had no idea what it was at the time. The counting, everything... I think leaving a toxic environment, my bad school helped me ameliorate it
This man's lectures are all too interesting to watch partially. Sapolsky I've got OCD for viewing your videos now, I've been on a Sapolsky lecture marathon for the past few hours now.
I'm totally convinced by his argument that schizotypalism is part of the natural history of religiousity, but I don't think it's adequate as complete theory of the whole big mixture. There're probably many different causal factors involved in innate religiousity and in cultural religiousity, and some adaptive and many maladaptive forms. I like that he feels like one of the relatively least partisan scientific theorists of religion.
He's not a Neurologist. That's a branch of medicine! He is a Neuroendocrinologist, a Neuroscientist, and a Behavioural Biologist/Biological Psychologist. Though these last two terms are kinda interchangeable, and are mostly demarcators of academic factionalism rather than intellectual interest :)
Hi there. Epilepsy is also known as "St. Paul's Disease."... Additionally, the ancient Hebrews were well aware of the 365 days in a solar year ( they couldn't have missed it after their stay in Egypt): the lunar structure of their calendar does not preclude this knowledge.
One question came up that was not answered. Why do people with OCD want to band together and share their OCD rituals? Here is my answer. A shared ritual is fixed. It is limited in time. Even if one person screws up, the ritual as a whole carries on. Private rituals can grow in complexity and length unlike a public one which is utterly and safely fixed by tradition. You know your own ritual is nuts, but if 100 other people are doing it too, it can't be nuts.
Roedy Green I like your point, I suspect that religious OCD rituals that multiply might involve a lot of activity in the ventral premotor cortex, where Giacomo Rizzolatti first identified the mirror neuron system. It's the similar system that makes you learn how to do something by imitation when you're a kid. It receives a lot of input from limbic areas (related to emotion), which are obviously involved in rituals. On the other hand private rituals from OCD people (like myself) might do the opposite supress the mirror neuron system, you actually try to hide your rituals from other people.
Roedy Green it's brief, but sapolsky answers this question when he talks about sharing the ritual and the importance of "getting the timing right." Martin Luther is great example because we know so much about his life and which of his personal rituals were able to proliferate through out the religious population and which were duds. Plenty of Luther's practices were a liberalizing force on Catholicism accepted by cosmopolitan german and dutch. Stuff that survived the reformation are things like trimming down the seven sacraments to communion and confession (i think?), salvation through faith alone, rules related to the priesthood, ect. People were generally ready and waiting for these changes, but it took someone like Luther to offer the scriptural and spiritual spark to the powder keg. Luther's personal practices, the ones related to ablution and purity, didn't make the cut.
it's because on top of their OCD, they cannot accept that they're behaviour is sick, they want to think they're normal ... seeing other people being just as fucked up as they are achieves that that's basically the essence of religion; it's the cultivation of mental disorders
Anyone that studies statistics need sot remember that their own bias, influences the interpretations of those stats and even the creation of the studies leading to them. Very important.
Excellent talk! Could it be the reasoning of the right number of "shamans" in the tribe has equivalence to the right number of artists, researchers, adventurers?
You can. It's on Schizophrenia and it's part of a series of more than twenty lectures that Stanford have made available online. Can't you see any of them in the side bar?
Anand Patel The claim is not that they have full-blown OCD. Rather, they are on an OCD spectrum. They have similar behaviors but on a much milder scale. He emphasizes that for every person with a full-blown mental disease, there are a number of genetic 'cousins' who have the same genetic and behavioral tendencies in a milder form.
+Anand Patel The rules that they follow are a codification of OCD, i.e. were written by following persons who exhibited OCD. It doesn't mean that Brahmens must all be on OCD spectrum, indeed many are likely to be OCD-free.
Great video. Now i'm curious though as to what happened biologically to me that made me go from lifelong agnostic to fundamental christian for a year of my life to 100% atheist.
+Myfavsandlikes Ah well maybe you need to learn some Psychology too then ;) I would hazard a guess that you were trying to find your social in-group, or having a mid-life crisis.. or potentially experienced death of a loved one. Have a look at what was going on in your life at the time, it may be rather telling!
+Myfavsandlikes Presuming of course that a biological explanation is possible and meaningful. Im more interested in some key markers in your language. Agnosticism is a reasonable place to start, but what does "fundamental" mean in respect to the teachings of Christ? As for "100%" in an already absolute position such as atheism is what is one to conclude?
So Dawkins got it wrong, to the extent he used a hacksaw instead of a screwdriver, as Hitchens used a hatchet, or Dillahunty using high explosives Sapolsky DISMANTLES religion, nut and bolt to the core. This is the next direction for public discourse
Interesting stuff. So, if religion and it's rituals helps to stabilize quirks of the mind, what happens if society suppresses religion? Is eliminating religion all together such a good idea then? Or even possible at all? The quirks won't disappear with religion since they are biological in origin. They will just keep popping up in new superstitious rituals.
Warrior Poet Science is based on evidence. Religion is not. So they are not the same. No comparison to religious zealotry can be made. That being said, I think that much of the cultural beliefs, particularly those regarding morality, of secular scientist is often just as unscientifically justifiable as religious beliefs.
Calvin Smith I reckon we're on the same page, or; at least in the same chapter. I was making a pit of a periphery point. "Science is based on evidence. Religion is not. So they are not the same. No comparison to religious zealotry can be made." - YES, of coarse. The point is, that is a 'belief system' just the same. I would also say, & this is just my emotionally charged, romantic notion of all things; that a little wonder & whimsy IS an inherently healthy thing, particularly tempered with wise & pragmatic thinking. Christopher Hitchens is an excellent example, & a most somber one, as I feel like: here is a man with a world class intellect & wit, with hugely valid perspectives on all manner of worldly on-goings; ( & this is hugely judgmental here, but.. ) who for all his brilliance, was empty in a way that... that we MUST be full, to really live healthily & completely. A little magic may have been the key to unlock the tower in his own intellectual hermitage, & freed him, to be warmer & more... alive. Needlessly, whimsically alluding to 'a little magic' in the most mundane of things... a chance encounter, a touchdown. a beloved chord, a sunset, making the next light, a perfect wave, a good morning kiss... or outright deep penitence & traditionally practiced religiosity; is, in a manner of thinking, the 'religious' element needed to keep life an experience of enrichment, even at it's worst. whwew... that one got away form me!?! HA!
I have to say that as a Christian, I also try to base my thinking on logical reasoning and rational thinking..........so this lecture leaves me very confused about my beliefs. At the same time I admit to having a lot of questions about religion and faith........and behaviors of people in the church. I don't know if I'll ever sort all this out. Am I supposed to just write off my Christianity as hogwash or what ? I have to say that I've seen a lot of thinking and behavior in the church in my life that leaves me scratching my head. I don't know why Christians cant believe in science and in Christ at the same time......they seem to be compelled to check their brains at they door when the come to church and just believe that a higher power will take care of them and the planet and they don't have to worry about anything. Most people I know of in church believe climate change is nonsense.......I don't understand why so many Christians think this way and that's always troubled me.
Dan N the reason I think this is, is that a lot of what the bible says either literally or implicitly contradicts modern scientific understanding. So some people feel like if they are to be true to their religion, something they are comfortable with and understand, they have to oppose contradicting views. Many do not understand or refuse to understand the scientific reasoning behind something so they just abandon it for what they do understand (ie the bible).
I don't think so. I think he's just saying that who we are and how and what we think has to do totally with biology. I agree with that. That he converted from Judaism to atheism is no different than it going the other way. It's just biology. No real way to know past that.
bryant tillman Not at all, facts are facts and in fact if you were able to finish the whole lecture he ends up by saying that not being religious is one of the greatest regrets in his life. Also, he is much much more respectfull than guys like Richard Dawikins.
Watch from 1:13:02 Temporal lobe personality (TLP); wonder if Saplosky puts himself in this category - the seizures. He is brilliant and I reference his work to my students - however he does display definite traits of a TLP himself. His role as a researcher educator is very self serving in the same vein that he speaks of all other aspects of religiosity..
i'll have to watch the other lectures but I'd be interested to know if he researched multiple facets of western (and non) society like politics / celebrity world (and why we seemingly don't get enough) / music / etc of those because here it seems like he is kind of picking out religion just because it's probably the largest example we have of social groups but there are heirachies, traditions, rituals with regard to those groups as well whether they identify as religious or not religious. also he noted scrupulousity but i'd be curious on rebellions he briefly glossed over as well, because rebellions/riots/protest don't have biological advantage but over and over we see them happening, for every culture there seems to be a counter; in a lot of politically sane years there was economic or civil unrest and then following would come some sort of political insanity..or why and how stereo types are usually underpinned by habit or coronation of sorts... because it seems like if every social group is paired with a cluster of symptoms the whole world is crazy (which i highly suspect haha)
I saw many people having Einstein tattoos, well these tattoo havers didn't get that Relativity is the equilibreum between spin and external speed in a gravitational group so I guessed I have to make a Sapolsky tattoo, as big as my face, but distorted to fit my facial proportion and then I reallized this is just me.
The problem is that people love to shout "Genetic Fallacy!" when you point this stuff out. If you can somehow make them realize that it's a simpler explanation, only then will they actually attempt to address the argument.
None recorded in scripture, you mean. Be that as it may, what is recorded in scripture is a large collection of communications ("epistles") attributed to him that are humorless, repetitive, contentious, presumptuous and behaviorally prescriptive interpretations of the thoughts and intentions of a person he never met and which had not been recorded to that point. If even some of those letters really are his, then there is at least a speculative case for mental disturbance of some kind.
Go and look at what he says about schizotypal personality and religious credulity, more toward the end. I haven't time now to find the minute count, but if you need help I'll try to accommodate you later. The material about the OCD nature of ritual isn't perhaps as much to the point. Be sure you look up what schizotypal personality entails, and the continuum it holds int he spectrum of delusional disorders. I do have a very solid idea of what this all means -- I teach this material myself.
I don't say so. This video clearly demonstrates a correlation, and I agree with it on principle. Of course it would need more of a diagnostic workup -- no mental illness, indeed no physical illness, has one sole cause. But it's suggestive. There's one socially sanctioned, undeniably irrational behavior that begs to be exempt from classification as delusional, and that has enjoyed such exemption for a long time. That is religious faith. The paradigm in changing and the exemption is running out.
Comfort (which likely translates to lower blood pressure) maybe? And havent historians/anthropolgists shown how such 'relgiousity' was basically tool to control the society. I think in ancient Rome, the priests were officially the only class who could fool people.
It's neither a scoring of cheap points nor bad reasoning, by the way, to refer to something that is there and easily demonstrated, just because I did not drag you to chapter and verse, or minute and second, and shove your nose into it. If you knew this footage as you imply you do, you would have recognized the reference. Liking it or admitting to it is your option, of course.
The other thing that's probably troubling you is the very suggestion that religiosity may be considered a form of delusional behavior. Any belief that veers from the objective truth, or isn't possible in the physical realm, may still have adaptive uses. But like any defense mechanism, it has to fool the unconscious, and the encroachment of more precise scientific knowledge is making religion a casualty. Sadly, we haven't outstripped the need for it yet, just the likelihood of holding on to it.
![Роберт Сапольски - Биология религиозности [Vert Dider]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7l1NhZ4EbEE/mqdefault.jpg)
![Роберт Сапольски — Биология религиозности [Vert Dider]](/img/tr.png)
Oh my god. I was so disappointed this lecture was excluded from the Stanford playlist. Thank you so much for uploading this.
judging from the size and color of his hair and beard, this lecture recording took place years earlier than the "official" set of 20+ lectures
you know when you have those moments in your life that everything turns? like a light is turned on or the blinds are removed? this lecture is that moment for me. Thank you.
Seen most of his lectures on RUclips, maybe all of them, many times over. I can honestly say that Dr. Sapolsky has hit the nail on the head in providing evidence towards so many of my own thoughts and theories as to how I perceived my behavior in society and into human behavior in society. As a critical thinker, his arguments appear well documented, unbiased, clear and very sensible. He's also a joy to listen to. He has a unique sense of humor and I love to see anyone with as much enthusiasm and fascination for a craft as Dr. Sapolsky does. He has definitely changed how I view and will continue to view human behavior for both myself and that of society forever. Wish there was more lectures though. I feel ingratiated never the less to have the opportunity to watch a Stanford lecture in general, at no cost; no complaints.
It does appear to me that Dr. Sapolsky places a lot of importance on the neurobiology over the psychology of human behavior, but that might be because of the course he's lecturing.
I am amazed at how he can reference biology, psychology, anthropology, and religion.
and he still blanked on some math in the middle.... relate-able af
The OCD part hit very close to home. When I was a child / teenager, I had intrusive thoughts that I cleansed with prayer rituals constantly. That eventually stopped, but my OCD has expressed itself differently over the years. Looking back, this lead me to think that religion lends itself well to OCD as a framework, but I hadn't considered that it might actually be the other way around.
Uh, anyway... Obligatory Sapolsky is awesome comment: Sapolsky is such a boss! :P
This is without a doubt one of the most interesting lectures I've listened to.
I wish this had 7.4 billion views
my name is Paul, and I find I'm here for absolutely no other reason than I find Sapolsky's lectures interesting.......I have temporal lobe epilepsy and find myself going to church with no faith at all.....fucking AMAZING!
thank you to whoever posts these brilliant lectures featuring this person.
.. excellent!!*****
Over and over again, during my enjoyment of the lecture ( again, thank you for posting this!!!), I would blurt out what Dr. Sapolsky was about to say, and when he would say it, I would clap my hands and explode, " YES!!". I'm glad that I was able to watch and enjoy this without being a distraction in the classroom. This is pure mental protein, not mind candy but mind fiber, healthy fuel for the brain. Loving it!!!
I've just read the small novel that is recommended at the end of this video, "Lying Awake" by Mark Salzman. It is beautifully written, and extremely sensitively told from the point of view of the Carmelite who has to choose whether or not to give up this transitory glory of seizure visions in her life. It is clear that the doctor does not understand it the way she does, including the aspect of suffering, and it doesn't make an easy statement on the nature of what is gained or lost in the "cure."
Go to the ABOUT section of this video, there is a link to the full set of lectures.
So this is the 'final lecture' that he mentioned he decided not to record/post on the official Stanford version of this course (ruclips.net/video/NNnIGh9g6fA/видео.html).. I always wondered what it was, and I'm sure glad I got to see it!
I'm schizotypal, and in my opinion, this is brilliant.
An incredible lecture from a man of incredible brilliance.
How To: Give a Lecture.
After only one lesson he is one of the best instructors I have ever learned from
This is a GREAT lecture
Thank you thank you thank you. I've been looking for this lecture for quite some time. And I am in shock of how this relates to me personally as an SPD - I didn't expect this.
I'd have clapped after this. Those are some lucky students.
I'm making these lectures a part of my daily learning ritual.
Thank you to share this lectures, we are all very lucky now; can you imagine? I´m enjoying it in Buenos Aires!
Yes -- he is a scientist without political agenda, or not nearly enough to disrupt his integrity as a researcher. He also remembers what it's like to be the one that got away from the observant community -- it can be sensitive or even traumatic -- and remains respectful.
A rabbi, a priest, a muslim, and a bishop walk into a bar. No joke, just wondering who the 4 people are that disliked this video. Great Lecture!
I have been enjoying the lectures immensely!
Great lecture, with provocative thoughts. Good evidence and reasoning, I got to watch more Sapolsky, it's fascinating !
I love how he states within the official Sanford videos that he's not going to have video of... this lecture.
Now THAT'S a lecture.
In regards to this lecture I suggest all to read Shamans Among Us by Dr. Polimeni. For all those who will read I will say ahead of time, you`re welcome. :)
1:11:45 is where he says it.
Thank you for pointing out the existence of Virtual Professors in such an intriguing and challenging way. I will enjoy!
Excellent. Thanks for posting.
I like the similarity he draws with religious ritual and OCD.
Thank you so much for uploading this!
I truly appreciate it.
It is too bad you cannot hear the questions. I wish they had a mike to catch them or that Dr. Sapolsky repeated the questions.
I had the severe form of OCD and had no idea what it was at the time. The counting, everything... I think leaving a toxic environment, my bad school helped me ameliorate it
This is almost W/W the same lecture I'm watching now 2012 on Stanford on line behavioral biology course right now
amazing lecture : ) Vote Sapolsky For President.
I can't help but think that Tetris plays on our less severe OCD tendencies.
Mr. profesor. I think that I have very strong case of OCD. I MUST listen all of yours lectures for six hours every day!
This man's lectures are all too interesting to watch partially. Sapolsky I've got OCD for viewing your videos now, I've been on a Sapolsky lecture marathon for the past few hours now.
Robert Sapolsky is basically my own personal Messiah.
I'm totally convinced by his argument that schizotypalism is part of the natural history of religiousity, but I don't think it's adequate as complete theory of the whole big mixture. There're probably many different causal factors involved in innate religiousity and in cultural religiousity, and some adaptive and many maladaptive forms. I like that he feels like one of the relatively least partisan scientific theorists of religion.
I love this lecture so much
He's not a Neurologist. That's a branch of medicine!
He is a Neuroendocrinologist, a Neuroscientist, and a Behavioural Biologist/Biological Psychologist. Though these last two terms are kinda interchangeable, and are mostly demarcators of academic factionalism rather than intellectual interest :)
Hi there. Epilepsy is also known as "St. Paul's Disease."...
Additionally, the ancient Hebrews were well aware of the 365 days in a solar year ( they couldn't have missed it after their stay in Egypt): the lunar structure of their calendar does not preclude this knowledge.
One question came up that was not answered. Why do people with OCD want to band together and share their OCD rituals? Here is my answer. A shared ritual is fixed. It is limited in time. Even if one person screws up, the ritual as a whole carries on. Private rituals can grow in complexity and length unlike a public one which is utterly and safely fixed by tradition. You know your own ritual is nuts, but if 100 other people are doing it too, it can't be nuts.
Roedy Green I like your point, I suspect that religious OCD rituals that multiply might involve a lot of activity in the ventral premotor cortex, where Giacomo Rizzolatti first identified the mirror neuron system. It's the similar system that makes you learn how to do something by imitation when you're a kid. It receives a lot of input from limbic areas (related to emotion), which are obviously involved in rituals. On the other hand private rituals from OCD people (like myself) might do the opposite supress the mirror neuron system, you actually try to hide your rituals from other people.
Roedy Green Also, private rituals are very changy, on the other hand religious shared rituals, like you said, are fixed.
Roedy Green it's brief, but sapolsky answers this question when he talks about sharing the ritual and the importance of "getting the timing right." Martin Luther is great example because we know so much about his life and which of his personal rituals were able to proliferate through out the religious population and which were duds. Plenty of Luther's practices were a liberalizing force on Catholicism accepted by cosmopolitan german and dutch. Stuff that survived the reformation are things like trimming down the seven sacraments to communion and confession (i think?), salvation through faith alone, rules related to the priesthood, ect. People were generally ready and waiting for these changes, but it took someone like Luther to offer the scriptural and spiritual spark to the powder keg. Luther's personal practices, the ones related to ablution and purity, didn't make the cut.
it's because on top of their OCD, they cannot accept that they're behaviour is sick, they want to think they're normal ... seeing other people being just as fucked up as they are achieves that
that's basically the essence of religion; it's the cultivation of mental disorders
is there a relationship between aspergers and schizotypalism? with both conditions, there is a tendency for literal/concrete thinking. anything else?
What year of lecture on this video? He is not silverhaired yet, 90s?
Great Lecture, many thanks!
watch and have fun
:-)
has Sapolsky ever lectured in Canada?
I enjoyed it. thank you for posting.
Raul Soto If only everyone on earth would listen to this human behaviour lecture, the world will be a better place!!!
+Raul Soto , thanks so much!
thank you so much for uploading
Anyone that studies statistics need sot remember that their own bias, influences the interpretations of those stats and even the creation of the studies leading to them. Very important.
Excellent talk!
Could it be the reasoning of the right number of "shamans" in the tribe has equivalence to the right number of artists, researchers, adventurers?
9:30 - saving this for myself since this is when Schizotypal personality disorder starts
You can. It's on Schizophrenia and it's part of a series of more than twenty lectures that Stanford have made available online. Can't you see any of them in the side bar?
This is a very interesting lecture ....
Sapolsky reminds me how dumb I am.
I have a question. If retuals followed by hindu bhramens is viewed as OCD & have genetic bases then how can they stop dowing that?
Anand Patel The claim is not that they have full-blown OCD. Rather, they are on an OCD spectrum. They have similar behaviors but on a much milder scale. He emphasizes that for every person with a full-blown mental disease, there are a number of genetic 'cousins' who have the same genetic and behavioral tendencies in a milder form.
+Anand Patel The rules that they follow are a codification of OCD, i.e. were written by following persons who exhibited OCD. It doesn't mean that Brahmens must all be on OCD spectrum, indeed many are likely to be OCD-free.
can anyone make out the question at 1:55?
Does anyone know of any readings or peer reviewed journals relevant to this lecture?
Very cool lecture on religiosity.
Great video. Now i'm curious though as to what happened biologically to me that made me go from lifelong agnostic to fundamental christian for a year of my life to 100% atheist.
+Myfavsandlikes Ah well maybe you need to learn some Psychology too then ;) I would hazard a guess that you were trying to find your social in-group, or having a mid-life crisis.. or potentially experienced death of a loved one. Have a look at what was going on in your life at the time, it may be rather telling!
+Myfavsandlikes Presuming of course that a biological explanation is possible and meaningful. Im more interested in some key markers in your language. Agnosticism is a reasonable place to start, but what does "fundamental" mean in respect to the teachings of Christ? As for "100%" in an already absolute position such as atheism is what is one to conclude?
world peace I'm confused as to what you are confused about lol.
Myfavsandlikes Fundamental and 100% are emotive terms. What are you asking a biological explanation of exactly?
world peace Exactly what I said in the original comment...though I'm pretty sure I've figured it out already.
So Dawkins got it wrong, to the extent he used a hacksaw instead of a screwdriver, as Hitchens used a hatchet, or Dillahunty using high explosives Sapolsky DISMANTLES religion, nut and bolt to the core. This is the next direction for public discourse
So brilliant. That is all.
Awesome! Thanks for posting!!!
Anyone know where I can get the reader he mentions?
Interesting stuff. So, if religion and it's rituals helps to stabilize quirks of the mind, what happens if society suppresses religion? Is eliminating religion all together such a good idea then? Or even possible at all? The quirks won't disappear with religion since they are biological in origin. They will just keep popping up in new superstitious rituals.
Well now it would surely stop the possessed type Schizo's those had very bad outcomes throughout human history
Warrior Poet
Science is based on evidence. Religion is not. So they are not the same. No comparison to religious zealotry can be made.
That being said, I think that much of the cultural beliefs, particularly those regarding morality, of secular scientist is often just as unscientifically justifiable as religious beliefs.
Calvin Smith I reckon we're on the same page, or; at least in the same chapter. I was making a pit of a periphery point.
"Science is based on evidence. Religion is not. So they are not the same. No comparison to religious zealotry can be made."
- YES, of coarse. The point is, that is a 'belief system' just the same.
I would also say, & this is just my emotionally charged, romantic notion of all things; that a little wonder & whimsy IS an inherently healthy thing, particularly tempered with wise & pragmatic thinking.
Christopher Hitchens is an excellent example, & a most somber one, as I feel like: here is a man with a world class intellect & wit, with hugely valid perspectives on all manner of worldly on-goings; ( & this is hugely judgmental here, but.. ) who for all his brilliance, was empty in a way that... that we MUST be full, to really live healthily & completely. A little magic may have been the key to unlock the tower in his own intellectual hermitage, & freed him, to be warmer & more... alive.
Needlessly, whimsically alluding to 'a little magic' in the most mundane of things... a chance encounter, a touchdown. a beloved chord, a sunset, making the next light, a perfect wave, a good morning kiss... or outright deep penitence & traditionally practiced religiosity; is, in a manner of thinking, the 'religious' element needed to keep life an experience of enrichment, even at it's worst.
whwew... that one got away form me!?! HA!
I suffer a bit from OCD but schizophrenia is far worse!
gracias Raulll!!!!! !!!! Esta no la subieron a Stanford! que guachos!
more information about Jewish gematria (numbers with "spiritual" or "mystical" meaning)
www.myjewishlearning.com/article/judaism-numbers/
John von Neumann 1903 - 1957 Hungarian-American Pure and Applied Mathematician, Physicist, Computer Scientist, Inventor and Polymath.
Yep, the jewish calendar adds a 13th month every few years to keep the months reasonably in sync with the solar year.
I love this man. :)
need to know how to spell the neurologists name from Harvard "ques twin"? Google search wont correct the spelling to finish the search..
Great lecture!
I have to say that as a Christian, I also try to base my thinking on logical reasoning and rational thinking..........so this lecture leaves me very confused about my beliefs. At the same time I admit to having a lot of questions about religion and faith........and behaviors of people in the church. I don't know if I'll ever sort all this out. Am I supposed to just write off my Christianity as hogwash or what ? I have to say that I've seen a lot of thinking and behavior in the church in my life that leaves me scratching my head. I don't know why Christians cant believe in science and in Christ at the same time......they seem to be compelled to check their brains at they door when the come to church and just believe that a higher power will take care of them and the planet and they don't have to worry about anything. Most people I know of in church believe climate change is nonsense.......I don't understand why so many Christians think this way and that's always troubled me.
Dan N the reason I think this is, is that a lot of what the bible says either literally or implicitly contradicts modern scientific understanding. So some people feel like if they are to be true to their religion, something they are comfortable with and understand, they have to oppose contradicting views. Many do not understand or refuse to understand the scientific reasoning behind something so they just abandon it for what they do understand (ie the bible).
I think you are correct, it makes sense to me. Thanks.
Does anyone know if/when he will have new lectures online or where to get them when new ones are released?
+Asron Asyoucanget There is a whole set for Behavioural Biology.. if you haven't seen them already ofc.
not seeing the data where temporal lobe epilepsy personalities is statistically significant.
interesting lecture ❤❤❤❤❤
Deathblow to Theistic Ontology- FATAL. Decision: Dr. Sapolsky.
I don't think so. I think he's just saying that who we are and how and what we think has to do totally with biology. I agree with that. That he converted from Judaism to atheism is no different than it going the other way. It's just biology. No real way to know past that.
Not sure that was enough of a blow. But would like to think you are right.
bryant tillman Not at all, facts are facts and in fact if you were able to finish the whole lecture he ends up by saying that not being religious is one of the greatest regrets in his life. Also, he is much much more respectfull than guys like Richard Dawikins.
Sorry, Pablo, I saw the whole lecture, and he never said that.
doctor ........YOU ROCK =)
Well said.
Watch from 1:13:02 Temporal lobe personality (TLP); wonder if Saplosky puts himself in this category - the seizures. He is brilliant and I reference his work to my students - however he does display definite traits of a TLP himself. His role as a researcher educator is very self serving in the same vein that he speaks of all other aspects of religiosity..
Thankyou!!!
i'll have to watch the other lectures but I'd be interested to know if he researched multiple facets of western (and non) society like politics / celebrity world (and why we seemingly don't get enough) / music / etc of those because here it seems like he is kind of picking out religion just because it's probably the largest example we have of social groups but there are heirachies, traditions, rituals with regard to those groups as well whether they identify as religious or not religious. also he noted scrupulousity but i'd be curious on rebellions he briefly glossed over as well, because rebellions/riots/protest don't have biological advantage but over and over we see them happening, for every culture there seems to be a counter; in a lot of politically sane years there was economic or civil unrest and then following would come some sort of political insanity..or why and how stereo types are usually underpinned by habit or coronation of sorts...
because it seems like if every social group is paired with a cluster of symptoms the whole world is crazy (which i highly suspect haha)
nice upload!
I saw many people having Einstein tattoos,
well these tattoo havers didn't get that Relativity is the equilibreum between spin and external speed in a gravitational group
so I guessed I have to make a Sapolsky tattoo,
as big as my face, but distorted to fit my facial proportion
and then I reallized this is just me.
Of course he isn't religious. He's WAY too smart and that's why I love him!
This is so true.
Are you talking about Narsistic psychic disorder?
The problem is that people love to shout "Genetic Fallacy!" when you point this stuff out. If you can somehow make them realize that it's a simpler explanation, only then will they actually attempt to address the argument.
I agree.
None recorded in scripture, you mean. Be that as it may, what is recorded in scripture is a large collection of communications ("epistles") attributed to him that are humorless, repetitive, contentious, presumptuous and behaviorally prescriptive interpretations of the thoughts and intentions of a person he never met and which had not been recorded to that point. If even some of those letters really are his, then there is at least a speculative case for mental disturbance of some kind.
I am sure that the Jewish people knew that Pharaoh was cruising the strip and they singled out Moses to take a trip to the first Tahoe Resort.
Go and look at what he says about schizotypal personality and religious credulity, more toward the end. I haven't time now to find the minute count, but if you need help I'll try to accommodate you later. The material about the OCD nature of ritual isn't perhaps as much to the point. Be sure you look up what schizotypal personality entails, and the continuum it holds int he spectrum of delusional disorders. I do have a very solid idea of what this all means -- I teach this material myself.
I don't say so. This video clearly demonstrates a correlation, and I agree with it on principle. Of course it would need more of a diagnostic workup -- no mental illness, indeed no physical illness, has one sole cause. But it's suggestive.
There's one socially sanctioned, undeniably irrational behavior that begs to be exempt from classification as delusional, and that has enjoyed such exemption for a long time. That is religious faith. The paradigm in changing and the exemption is running out.
I didn't quite get it, what does society gain by listening to these ''shamans'' and continuing their rituals?
Collective Anesthesia?
Comfort (which likely translates to lower blood pressure) maybe? And havent historians/anthropolgists shown how such 'relgiousity' was basically tool to control the society. I think in ancient Rome, the priests were officially the only class who could fool people.
consider the possibility of swarm intelligence and how shamanic personalities fit into that
It's neither a scoring of cheap points nor bad reasoning, by the way, to refer to something that is there and easily demonstrated, just because I did not drag you to chapter and verse, or minute and second, and shove your nose into it. If you knew this footage as you imply you do, you would have recognized the reference.
Liking it or admitting to it is your option, of course.
The other thing that's probably troubling you is the very suggestion that religiosity may be considered a form of delusional behavior. Any belief that veers from the objective truth, or isn't possible in the physical realm, may still have adaptive uses. But like any defense mechanism, it has to fool the unconscious, and the encroachment of more precise scientific knowledge is making religion a casualty. Sadly, we haven't outstripped the need for it yet, just the likelihood of holding on to it.
Nice