Joe Henrich on how Westerners became psychologically peculiar and economically prosperous
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 авг 2024
- Joe Henrich, Professor of Human Evolutionary Biology at the University of Harvard, presented a further perspective on culture and on how it develops. He pointed out that “WEIRD people” - western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic - are different from all other people and took the audience far back in time to late antiquity. The foundation stone for the development path of “WEIRD people” was then laid, explained Henrich. With the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, complex family structures were destroyed and clans were no longer tolerated. From this developed around the year 1000 what Joe Henrich calls “voluntary organizations”: cities, universities, and monasteries. The keyword “voluntary organizations” is important, because once people could make their decisions freely and without the influence of complex kinship structures, individualism developed - a core element of Western culture.
Finally, Henrich emphasized the importance of culture for the formation of institutions, thus making it clear that institutions are always culturally bound and therefore cannot simply be transferred. This in turn has far-reaching consequences for international organizations and companies. With this in mind, the take-home for the day was clear: Culture is an essential factor that permeates our lives in all areas - including business.
www.ubscenter....
#UBSCenterForum #EconomicsForSociety #UniversityOfZurich
Thank you for your interest in this video. We understand the importance of the debate. Please be respectful, constructive and modest in your choice of words.
It would be good if Prof Heinrich could talk a bit about individualism and collectivism in the light of trust and onwards from that, credit formation. The formation of modern, transferable forms of credit has been one of the key pillars boosting developed societies from less developed societies; and it would be worth knowing if trust is cultural.
"Humans are a tribal species struggling to become a global one." - biologist Edward O. Wilson
Well... thank you for reaffirming all of my previously held beliefs. Now there's data to back my intuitive reasoning.
Very very interesting! But, please tell the videographer to film also the PP(power point) image, not only the man who talk
Dear Albinetz, thank you for your interest. We do offer a slides-only version with a different focus → ruclips.net/video/Cunua5uAFL4/видео.html
@@ubscenter, thank you very much, you are doing a wonderful thing!
very important work
Right! Jerry Diamond had the same experience in Papua New Guinea
I'll stand corrected but I believe it was less Christianity than the social structure of the Germanic peoples - who eventually dominate Europe in the 5th - 6th century - that was marked by tracing the "family" equally through mother and father. No doubt this was buttressed by the Church. In any case, if you try to trace a family-tree through both parents, as opposed to only the father, you deal, very quickly, was completely unmanageable numbers for social organization. Hence the need for non-family organizations to fill a very large socio-economic void.
Several questions: First, this analysis would have been correct in 1950s when the economic development was confined to Western European societies. How does one explain the growth of "Confucian Countries" (Japan, HongKong, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea and China) where society is viewed as a family and the government is viewed as the head of that family? Second, Professor Heinrich claims that economics is a function of culture. This is a rather old idea as is seen in the this quote by a famous economist: “In social sciences it is now widely assumed that reality is socially constructed. The way people think and talk about social realities affect agendas, policies laws and the ways laws are interpreted. Just as perception not merely registers but shapes reality, knowledge does not simply reflect but constructs reality.” - Jan Nederveen Pieterse - `Development Theory, Deconstructions / Reconstructions’, Vistaar Publications, p.2. Finally, a request: Can the las slide showing quotes by Montesquieu and Adam Smith be made available?
Dear Mukesh, thank you for your thoughts. You can find the quotes in our slides-only version of this keynote → ruclips.net/video/Cunua5uAFL4/видео.html
@@ubscenter Thank you
I should have said this before making the comment I did. I am a commoner and my questions are born out of my ignorance and doubts rather than from my knowledge and convictions. I would be glad if someone from UBS Center or Professor Heinrich's students is ready to clear those doubts and suitably inform me. Thank you.
But where prof Henrich justify kind of competition between west and east, sustaining that west is more developed or les? and who said that the societies influenced by Confucian philosophy is viewed as a family and government as a tutors ? Do you have some resources for that? I know there is a lot of debate about how self is constructed in some Asian, les or more so called ”traditional” societies, and in the West one, but that doesn’t have to be so correct, or let’s said they are correct but in additional to that, in Eastern part of the Western societies are also that types of societies, where the individual self is more prone to collectivism and family is very important. Like country where I was born, Romania, which is considered a collectivistic society very similar lar with many other Asian societies or with the societies where East Christianity its the main religion. Also, mr Heinrich did not claims in very functionalist term that economics is a function of culture but he said that the ”culture”(misleadingly term) is matter a lot. Applying different game theory to different groups shows different results and that are very influenced by cultural dimensions. To say reality is ”socially constructed” doesn’t explain nothing or gave only circulars hypothesis. The analyzes are carried out with interdisciplinary tools, including cultural evolution, the gene culture coevolution, game theory, evolutionary psychology, economics, religion and others and seem to provide more better and plausible explanations that cultural anthropology or sociology or economics alone have not provided. .
I m so moved and confused at the same time..
Moved by what? It was a lot of self congratulatory nonsense and false causations.
Greed, Genocide, plunder, looting and the lower human morality -making them different from all other people. This was made possible by the GREED and Power of the Royalty of Europe fueled by the MORAL AUTHORITY by the Vatican & Pope to go kill and take over other humans and land in the name of Christianity - its this SIMPLE. The people followed this devilish combo. Once this is done like any gangster or criminal the booty is enjoyed and defended and invested. No need of a book from a white person trying to explain it in so many words. Check out the Doctrine of Discovery by the Pope which by the way is still law in America.
@@Octavus5 Cope.
description says W stands for white. It actually stands for western.
True! Thanks for pointing out. We updated the description accordingly.
Western is just a euphemism anyway, innit?
Freudian slip-
Same thing.
An mbeadh dearcadh eile aige ar an saol, ar éabhlóid an duine, abraimis, agus ar chúrsaí cultúrtha i gcoitinne, dá mbeadh an chaint sin tugtha i dteanga eile aige? I bhfocail eile,
cé chomh mór faoi thionchar an Bhéarla is atá sé (agus an aigne WASP atá i réim le fada in Harvard)?
anyone know other talkers for this kind of thing?
Fukuyama talked about this (how the State, Institutions and Rule of Law came about)....long ago....(2012> I think)
Jon Haidt
Peter Turchin
Robert Woodberry, sociologist at Baylor, has used large datasets to look at the influence of religion on democracy, in award-winning work. The findings are compatible with the work of Henrich and his colleagues.
scholars/researchers in cognitive anthropology: Dan Sperber, Pascal Boyer, Robert Boyd and Pete Richerson, Harvey Whitehouse,
Seems smart enough, but why doesn't he know that phenomena, strata and millennia (18:45 "...by the end of the first millennia.") are plurals?
Do you really believe that if you showed Dr. Henrich a transcript of his speech, he would not understand the plural?
So you equate the ability to convey your thoughts into spoken words at 100% accuracy as a measure of "smart"?
Have you met Stephen Hawking?
@@michaelmaloskyjr
Your questions don't answer my question.
@@hankroest6836 So I'm picking just one troll today to feed, among many threads here and on Quora, so guess whose lucky day it is?
Okay, obviously you can't reliably draw conclusions about someone's intelligence from a few syntax examples, given that the motor skill and executive functioning required of speaking draws upon a different part of the brain, but let's actually look at your "evidence"
10:07 "It's that extra stuff that you can't explain with material constraints...these harder, much deeper, more important phenomena" Notice the "these" in his sentence? Hear that?
Dr. Henrich continues to clarify that "extra stuff."
12:13 Let's look at this Latin plural he used you DIDN'T bring up [cherry pick much?] "These self-reinforcing self-equilibria"
Uhh, what? Doesn't this moron mean self-equilibrium?? What an idiot. Wait, he's talking about Nash equilibria. Oh yea, he said "these" and meant many parties. Yep, that's Nash equilibria.
Now, I'm the idiot or maybe whoever wrote...lol
15:50 And let's look at another one of the burrs that's got you scratching:
"Complex chiefdoms -- now there's strata: One clan only marries with itself OR other elite clans" And immediately he mentions another strata but doesn't enumerate it. Nonetheless, you see those plurals? The "or"? And dude -- LOL You self-own so hard here on "strata."
From the Oxford Dictionary: "A level or class to which people are assigned according to their social status, education, or income. 'members of other social strata'"
This was the second, more peculiar definition. Guess why it's plural? Can you see his slide at 16:19? See all those people symbols in the "strata" bubbles? Notice how there's uhh..yea more than one? I can't even...
Sure Dr. Henrich may not be the most eloquent speaker or a Hitchens avatar, and he appears flush with ideas and thoughts he's hurrying through (he mentions the time constraint he's under in this limited forum), but consider your post -- well, it's not just simple fastidious nitpicking is it? You erroneously extrapolate [words are such joy!] from some facile (and now demonstrated) mistaken notions of syntax to conclude Dr. Henrich ain't smart.
He doesn't get Latin "pluralae" [!😅!] Nope, just clueless. Man gets Ph.D, teaches, invited to world symposiums, publishes, earns respect and admiration from peers -- Wait, wait...I think I get it now. Your only reaction to this lecture reveals YOUR cards: You pointed out three words that allowed you a brief episode of snide superiority over someone you don't know, but reacted personally to. "He's not THAT smart; even I know those plurals."
Whew! You feel better now? That's the point right?
Look it's perfectly fine that you will never speak to a large gathering of interested people who view you as an expert. It's perfectly fine no one will ever cite you or anything you write in a research paper. Ever. This is all fine. I'm in the same roomy boat :)
Instead, try listening -- process, mull, wonder, experiment, emulate, draw inspiration, play and connect ideas to others. You know, normal stuff secure people do :) Peace and may your intellectual journey never end.
Btw about "millennia:" It's not uncommon when you're running through a speech and referencing time periods to use this construction. That's the beauty, the efficacy of English -- if the meaning conveys without obstruction, if it just works in the context, then who really cares? Well, there's always a few curmudgeons in the Grammar Gestapo * wink wink *
gpb.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/social-studies-115-ws1-r1-grades-6-12/barbarians-at-the-walls-sui-tang-and-turk-in-first-millennia-china/
You don’t know what you are talking about!!
Just go to the gym, my friend!
M P : And YOU simply take care but of your body, unable to take along once you die! : Poor chap ...
deeply disagree..but great work
Deeply disagree to what part my frnd? Even I m little confused..is he saying going to Church helped ppl become more individualistic? And he doesn't say anything.. rather shows his graphs n data unlike any religious claims ..
@@prasenjit134 im not confused he didnt speak about Dunber number..not a uttered thougths about sexualy made cohesion in the Dunbars group...jealosey was understood on old way..thats all..he used the game theory like the others...at him competicion is the basic like bitween chimps and not like at Tomasello who knows the basic human condition is the cooperation
@@szabionody9256 wtf are you talking about
@@JayzsMr ingroup dyniamic is not just about gametheory
@@szabionody9256 there is no game theory
Here
too bad he's not a good speaker, probably interesting