Political Rhetoric, Explained - Steven Pinker
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Compete video at: fora.tv/2008/09...
Psychologist Steven Pinker explains why political rhetoric often tends to be vague, empty, and bland.
-----
One of the principal researchers on language and cognition, Steven Pinker turns his focus to what our language says about us. He explores the sometimes comic, sometimes tragic ways our mind works, using language as a clue.
Why do we impose taboos on certain topics, like sex? Why do we go to great lengths to bribe or convince?
What do our swear words (and their syntax) say about us? How do our minds handle the large amount of information targeted at us each day? - The Commonwealth Club of California
Steven Pinker is a prominent Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist and popular science writer known for his wide-ranging advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind.Pinker is also a Harvard College Professor and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. Until 2003, he taught in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT.
This is pretty self evident stuff, but its good to hear it so eloquently explained.
yes, you're absolutely right!
In fact, I wish Pinker would stay away from Linguistics as well!
@IncLogic A good psychologist is by no means a good politician
Thanks; helped a bunch :D
@farouqnimer Truth. Thats why Pinker is claiming to be a politician. He's simply explaining a few areas of political rhetoric.
Actually he argues that nuture (i.e. post-natal social experience) interacts with genetic dispositions, resulting in certain reactions in how innate drives are dealt with and certain products in terms of cultural behaviour
They're probably not well read enough (...not something to fling at others, since very few people are as well read as they think they are -- alas, I've to include myself there). I've given his word less weight after reading some disturbing things he said about the genocide in Yugoslavia.
Pinker is brilliant.
@ihatekhomeini ...i kinda feel bad now. haha. I wouldn't say condescending, but more skeptical. Since his main field is psychology and linguistics, he's more than likely going to have a preference.
You should read then about Steven Pinker's critique of Chomsky's naive view on darwinism
The master of political rethoric is the English stand-up comedian and writer PAT CONDELL.
no. pinker says we force them because we aren't critical enough.
If I was at this meeting, I would be the guy in the 7th row, near the aisle, and totally asleep.
exactly! in fact, most of his new book, THE STUFF OF THOUGHT, is plagiarised from Lakoff in particular, and cog. lx. in general.
Ron Paul = substance
and this reaction to truth.....is due to how stupid most people are..do to the way society is now.
The political status quo is bloody embarrassing.
You've written one of those youtube comments.
What he is saying is that ordinary people are dumb so they force the honest and genius politicians to make vague speaches. This scientist is the greatest defender of politicians I have ever seen 😂😂😂😂
Pinker also strongly disagrees with Chomsky on the origins of language.
Hey hey hey!
Pinker should switch to politics; at least then he can make a bit more sense [than his linguistic theory].
WHat he says about the "CHANGE" thing was copied from Chomsky anyway - again.
Lol. Partisan politcal ad preceeds this video.
This comments section is a perfect, running experiment for Pinker's central thesis.
wht is the goal of politician who used the word vague language?
@rockos414 ba-zing!
Pinker's cool
@bigdumbclown did you vote for bush? =]
Steve Pinker is like sex for the brain!
@skepticasts It's because he is just another modern day sophist and his pseudo-explanations are a whole lot of hooey that befuddle other people by constructing false data and presenting them as a scientific fact that is seemingly irrefutable. Who is he really? Not a philosopher or a scientist but only a linguistic maven who uses rhetorical gimmicks to dismiss ideas that he does not like.