I wouldn't call it a stigma. Most of the time, it's not that you're punished for saying you don't know. It's that others get rewarded for being blowhards, so there's a pressure to dishonestly claim expertise. Also, checking their knowledge is hard, time consuming work, so most humans believe humans who project confidence even when they have no business having any.
Or 'I have no basis for an opinion' which shifts the onus away from what appears to be an individual failure to the problem of the lack of clean data from which to draw a conclusion.
Silly platitudes aside id guess intelligence is not just questioning but using the education and questioning seeking facts to prove or disprove their or others proofs, but I’m just a talking chimp. Happy Christmas or what ever your holiday
Lol he “rationally” believes that it was suicide even though he considers Epstein a “fraud.” If Epstein was a “fraud” and potentially a Mossad agent, why is it crazy to think he was killed? Aren’t pedophiles killed in prisons and jails all the time? Aren’t intelligence agents ordered to kill themselves if captured too?
He brought up not being able to convince the pope about jesus and brought up QANON crazy and laughed at the idea of pizzagate while Maxwell is on trial. Pinker the puppet.
@@ianthescientist8827 like I said, what Tyranny? You’re incredibly lucky if you live in all those countries mentioned, save for maybe China which is the only country you’ve mentioned that even has a shred of tyranny, but keep pretending you know what that word means.
@@sspbrazil Boris Johnson is trying to pass a bill that will allow police to search people on the spot for no given reason, and without consent. That fucking tyranny. At least that's a part of it
@@acidducks9476 the key word is “trying” which means it has to go through parliament, in Russia and China there would not be the process, it would just be put into place. That’s my point, anyone living in the UK, US, Australia and Canada are incredibly lucky that they can go out and protest these things and that you have a Parliament or Congress that have to pass these things because there are countries in the world that don’t have these freedoms.
When I was a student, I learn that irrationality is a natural brain tendency, a la Kahneman. But when academics give examples of irrationality, 100% of their examples are of right-wing irrationality. No one dares to point to left-wing irrationality. This podcast was a deja vu of that experience.
@@fuckerz221 Thanks for getting it! This was my life for 25 years in academia. They are hiding behind the mantle of science, but it's like the shaman of the past who got to tell everyone what "THE science" says, while using it as a hierarchical control tool.
No one will point out the left sides hypocrisy or bullshit. They have a mob mentality that is scary and totally irrational. Honestly both sides are psychotic if left unchecked and given total power, were supposed to balance each other out and have a give and take type set up. Now people just oppose something simply because it came from the mouth of an opposing party member, even if it lines up with their true beliefs and is helpful for all, they argue it. They wont allow reason, middle ground or peace between themselves. Each party wants to totally rule the other under their feet and nothing short of total dominion over that pesky "enemy" will be good enough for them. Its truly scary to see both groups think each other are a danger to society, this brings war and genocide every time! Be cautious people, this can happen again...
I think Rogan didn´t understand what Pinker said early in the video, but in one point he said that climate change beliefs are more determined from your political standpoint than from rationality. And the example he gives is actually that the right-wing can be really rational and intelligent to defend their standpoint, whereas the left wing when explaining, fails miserably, saying shit like: oh its the ozone layer, but can´t actually explain it.
@@popfan7676 You're right. But most of it was the other way. I know what you mean about host and guest not understanding each other. Each carries the convo where they want it to go.
I disagree. I do not think that there is a lack of rationality in government. Rather, there is a disconnect in values between representative government and its electorate. Lobbying plays a large factor in this unfortunately, but also the increasing variance of values among the population plays a role in this. When we look at the policy measures taken according to their underlying values, policy is getting more and more rational and data-driven. The problem is that these values do not correspond with the values of the majority of citizens.
They are though, it's just that they realigned their purpose. If you think that the role of government officials is to do right by it's all people in the country you are right, it's a false statement, however, if you consider their aim to be: doing ` good` to their party lines and supporters, they have indeed become way more rational and are using all the tricks in the book to promote their own agenda.
Reminder: Stephen Pinker was on Epsteins flight logs, and he aided Epsteins legal defense against sex trafficking charges in 2007, helping Epstein avoid prison.
He is a smart man. Especially when I heard him down play Epstein. Throwing as much subtle water on that fire. He had the unfortunate opportunity to have met him. I am positive that there are some key victims that were threatened and paid extremely mind blowingingly well to disappear and shut up. He. Probably falls under their protection.
Agreed, and I’ll go a step further; he’s a typical arrogant man of “science.” All of his examples and hypotheticals of irrationality were of the right, and Christians. For example, his example of telling the Pope that “Jesus is not the son of God.” You don’t think that was a dig on God and believers?! Yes it was, this guy is an arrogant fool.
I was really enjoying listening to this podcast while fishing the other day. Two hours in when they started talking about UFO’s, I was caught off guard when Pinker said that he doesn’t think a fighter pilot would be the right person to judge weather something looks strange in the sky or not. TWO HOURS OF MY FUCKING LIFE WASTED.
The entire episode was him putting his stamp of approval on every "official statement" line and opinion, at times to the point of incredulity. I stopped listening when he said that from everything he's seen, it's his opinion that Theo Epstein committed suicide. At Rogan's surprised "really"!? He said "it just makes more sense that he was able to do it because the guards screwed up and weren't paying attention (or something to that effect). When presented with the cameras being shut off when it happened, the medical examiner saying the ligature marks are what you find more with strangling/garroting, not hanging, etc., he did some dance away from it. He did that with pretty much anything that had convincing evidence, but that didn't jive with the official statement by authorities in the government or news media. As a rule I agree that more often than not there aren't grand conspiracies, and the not elaborate the more this is true. But I'm a sucker for a good argument, every once in a while one will lead me to change my opinion, not often but it does happen. He was hanging his hat on every official position regardless of how thin it may be and how much good evidence that runs counter to it is. I've heard him several times on Freakonomics and have read some articles from him. I don't agree with him on a lot of things and I did find that he had a tendency to give opinions even when his knowledge on the subject was limited at best, but I still respected his opinion. I've known of him for 20+ years, and in this single interview he managed to completely change my opinion to him, and not for the better. Edit: See, I can have an opinion changed every once in a while.
@@timwhite5562 Oh aye, Pinker is 110% a corrupt establishment shill and scientism popularizer par excellence. Trained through extensive blackmail on Epstein Island like the rest of them, to say whatever the men in dark robes and masks want him to say. I think it's no theory at this point, it's just an obvious conspiracy. It's an emerging global technocratic order that has Pinker paying lip service to it, and plenty other popular figures , politicians, celebrities, you name it.
I detest how he differentiated city people as “educated, hipster, and knowledge workers” to suburban and country folk as “less educated.” I remember listening to Jordan Peterson in a lecture warning about the dangers of Ideologues like Pinker.
Im against anything I'm not allowed to talk about. All of the hot button issues that get you cancelled are indicators that the subject is being curated. In the same way, if you want to know who's in power, find out who you aren't allowed to criticize.
Bro wtf. I literally watched this when it first was uploaded and all the comments were about his connection to a certain billionaire island man that enjoys youthful flesh. All these comments just disappeared.
The moment scientists said that right-wing demonstrations were "covid surge events" but BLM demonstrations were no such thing, this showed how much they were guided by "rationality" and the scientific method lol.
@@lowkeyelena221 Probably the "experts" that state something as fact and then backpedal a few weeks or even years later as their facts turn into falsehoods. Fauci is a prime example.
Many right wingers don’t deny climate change, but the amount of human contribution (which is in fact debatable), and to what extent government policy can correct for it is highly debatable. Science tells us “what is” Science doesn’t tell us “what we ought to do” Big difference.
The question how much we contribute, and how policy could change it, are *is* questions, though. The first is even purely scientific. Part of the *is* questions do leave science a bit, since politics is a lot more messy. Our models for measures often fail since they don't consider how people actually change their behaviors (e.g. using loopholes, abusing new laws). And it's even harder to tell how it would affect, say, Chinese emissions. But those are not *ought* questions. An ought question would be (for instance), if we could easily limit warming to 2.5 degrees but have to spend a lot to limit it to 1.5 degrees, how much of that is worth spending.
The climate changed because they changed it. If the govt really wanted to stop global warming or stationary domes of high pressure which are creating droughts, all they would need to do is ban the ionospheric heaters which are in use all over the planet.
The majority of scientists, world wide, across agencies and in multiple disciplines disagree with you. You are right that what we should do in response is debatable. It is not debatable that human activity is main driver in the current rate of climate change.
You mean disagree with the left. Not a lot of Trump supporters out there beating people up for wearing the wrong kind of hat or sitting in the coloreds-only section at school.
@@MrShanester117 Perhaps that's true. I just haven't seen any evidence for it, other than the "MAGA country!" white supremacists who attacked poor Jussie Smollett with a noose in Chicago.
It’s the old adage. if it goes wrong you’re crazy, if it goes right you’re a genius. It’s best to stay true to what you you believe in deep down. Of course there’s just naive people that enjoy the oh so powerful drug of blissful ignorance. But if you can rationally conclude through studies and facts that what you believe in is a good cause that you can whole heartedly support. This man seems fairly intelligent and well spoken. He might be a bit naive to conspiracies. But let’s be honest 80-90% of conspiracies are bullshit. Some have truth but u use facts and evidence to prove them not a hunch.
This is the best comment. At this point I think all of us have a fantastic nose for utter made up bullshit theories VS the very easily demonstrable shady conspiracy bullshit going on in our world. Lumping them both together has been a standard tactic to dismiss the blatant exposure of real world criminal behaviour and conspiracy.
"We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares. "But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. "What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us." - Neil Postman
@@aaronwebb1548 Yep, i think Hurley's point is more important than Orwell's one. I found 1984 quite disappointing because his conclusion of the inaptitude to rebel from within the system didn't rly add up for me. Plus the fact that, in 1984, the vast majority of people is kinda free to go around and do their things (even tho there lives sucks). Where as in Huxley's world, the system is way more viscous, realistic and relevant to our society nowadays (imo). But still, same conclusion: this wouldn't hold, and Dostoevsky kinda have the last word in this matter for me: mankind, would burn anything of those societies down to the ground in the end, just to prove that they're not a piano key (yes that's not exactly Dostoevsky's point, but it still work here imo).
Liberalism is the #1 reason why America has political extremism. Guess which part shuts down college debates, attacks police, doxs people they don’t like, burns cities ?
@@akeldama09 Yeah, look at Boston. Cambridge burns 24/7. It barely stopped police attacks enough to invent and produce a vaccine in no time. Now that you're safe it can go back to shutting down debates.
As soon as he described people living in cities as "well educated and smart" and people living rurally/suburbs as "less well educated and not so smart" he disproved his entire narrative
But it’s statistically true - it doesn’t mean if you took a city person off of the street and a person living rurally off of the street, the city person would be smarter than the rural person EVERY TIME. But if you made the bet that a city person would be smarter/has achieved a higher degree of formal education than a rural person, you would be right more times than not.
@Ladiesman1447 only education in texts books. As far as human knowledge to survive and be self sufficient goes away closer you get to the cities. People prefer one of the other,and their both within their right. I'll take a mechanic over a BA graduate for life purpose.
Has this guy been living in a whole since the beginning of COVID? How could you live through the past two years and not question how weird everything is now? I would love to see how he explains China’s viral labs or Epstein. It would be entertaining to see him forsake everything he just said in seconds, and he would.
He gets into Epstein later in the episode. His opinion? He thinks the official findings of suicide were what happened. He said "it's more likely that it's just a matter of prison employees not doing their job properly or paying attention." (Not his exact words, but pretty close). Rogan's "really?!" Was kind of funny. He asked him "so even after the fact that the cameras had mysteriously stopped working when he was allegedly hanging himself or the fact a medical examiner's found that ligature mark is inconsistent with hanging?" To be honest, I haven't followed the story, at all really, so I don't know what they found and can only go by what I hear. I understand what he was saying about the mark on the neck; that with a hanging it's usually up really high because of how the body hangs, as opposed to being low when someone gets garroted. But I don't know how they found him. I know people who commit suicide in confined spaces like jails don't always hang themselves like you typically see on the gallows. They won't have anywhere to attach the end of whenever they're using, so they'll tie it to a bar or doorknob, get on their knees and lean forward, basically strangling themselves. So it is plausible that he could have had those marks, but still killed himself. But all the other shit isn't as easy to explain. The entire interview was what you're seeing on display here. LITERALLY everything he came at believing the "official" story, including ones that are obviously not correct. It got tedious and I only lasted half the interview.
@@timwhite5562 Good to know, and that is why I didn’t want to watch this episode. Dude thinks he is smarter than everyone else by a pre-meditated assertion that everyone who questions what is reported is doing so because they are unintelligent. And, therefore, he must be the smarter one. The irony is, it’s the other way around. He is making determination of value and facts at the behest of someone else and thinking he the most intelligent and informed. This is the hallmark trait of a literate imbecile, in that, he can read about stuff, but he can’t really comprehend and reconcile information because his cognition is running in reverse. It’s literally a bias-driven form of mental processing.
The prison Epstein was sent to has everything specifically designed so inmates can't hang themselves. They wear clothes and use bed sheets made of a sort of paper that crumbles apart if you try to use it to make a rope you can hang yourself with. It would take an extraordinary level of incompetence for Epstein to have been able to hang himself in there, especially considering how high profile an inmate he was. They get into the David Fravor UFO sighting later too, and he admits he hasn't looked into it at all and doesn't know a single detail about it but says he can rationally dismiss the entire thing out of hand because of some intellectual principle that it must be false because the vast bulk of UFO sightings that came before it have been fake or wrong. Also mentions Mick West and gives the same tired arguments Neil deGrasse Tyson uses. Then he shifts the conversation to false memories and some student who thought they were abducted and probed by aliens when the only thing Joe is saying is that these Navy pilots and technicians saw something weird and we don't know what it is. No one brought up aliens until Pinker did. It's like he wasn't listening to what was being said to him and jumped straight to some generic talking points. Strikes me as someone who's skeptical to the point of just being dense.
@@flynnoflenniken7402 It’s not skepticism to the point of being dense, it’s acknowledging the gaps in one’s knowledge, something nearly everyone in this cesspool of a comment section can’t seem to do. When we’re confronted with mysteries, we should never fill in the blanks however we see fit and regard it as fact.
@@ericanderson7346 Pinker has been to Epstein's island. Theres no gap in his knowledge or lack thereof, hes an active participant in the cabal of evil.
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." Carl Sagan None of us are immune to this. Remain skeptical. Ask questions that require evidence, not opinion. Encourage debate between opposing views. We need more Carl Sagan's in the world.
This is exactly how extreme covert narcissists recruit "flying monkeys". For certain people, all you have to do is compromise their ego and you've got them. They were successfully fooled and by the time they figure that out, they can't bear to admit it, even (especially) to themselves.
But is that not exactly what JRE is? There is nothing rational about this show. Its Joe protecting his feelings and beliefs in spite of facts and evidence. Most of his guests do the same and his audience treats his podcasts like they are the encyclopedia of truth. This show is a prime example of rationalizing feelings instead of facing certain truths that people simply don't like.
I like how he said “the less educated More rural areas.” How much can I trust him now? There are doctors, Lawyers, engineers, etc living in rural areas
I wonder why? Hmm has he been to the island? Is he connected to Harvard ? Did Epstein give millions of dollars to Harvard? These are rational questions, what's the rational conclusion?
So basically, by the end, Pinker’s rationality has led him to the conclusion that the official narrative on absolutely everything is what intelligent people (who only live in cities) should believe. 👍👍
finito. bravo. you completed Pinkers Palace. Now move on to Schaub's Shack! try and find the hidden chauvinism in the invisible man bun boutique before time runs out!
Maybe my moral claims, with my hypocrisy included, exist in tension with every other human’s moral claim and hypocrisy. This is the only objective reality. Hypocrisy is the air and a moral claim is the fuel for the combustion engine of existence.
also it's quite difficult to parse the diff between your, you,re, there, they're, their, could have/could of etc etc .. when you only have half brain, one does find..tragically..
How come the creator of the MRNA vaccine has been deplatformed and completely censored? I appreciate Rogan but he continually contradicts himself, but he is unfortunately one of the only people we have to speak for us.
Spotify man... There is no way they didn't sneak in a clause or two to keep him under wraps. Exactly why they offered him 100 mln. Do you really think spotify will make that money back? No chance imho.
It's interesting to see Stephen Pinker's projection. He's calling out everyone who he disagrees with saying you can't change their minds with evidence. He's saying that everything he believes is correct. He already knows you're wrong and he's right.
Are you listening at all? He is asking to challenge your own belief system. My question to you ... Have you ever tried? Truly tried? I did and I changed my mind when it comes to religion completely.
@@basengelblik5199 I did listen. He used the 'right wing' as an example for every single point he made while not once incriminating anybody else, or himself.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 Well, has it ever occurred to you that maybe he is correct? Perhaps leave your biases at the door and listen to guy. Truly listen, without knee jerk responses that are really just manifestations of your ego. Then, after really embodying his viewpoint for a while, formulate your response honestly. If you still think he’s full of shit so be it but a little empathy goes a long way. If you expect people to be charitable to you be charitable to them too. This obviously applies to Pinker as well, who could always do a better job, as we all could.
Calling out people who believe in PizzaGate literally during the same week of the trial of ghislaine maxwell is a bold move. PizzaGate may in and of itself a little crazy but still... Bold. Move.
This guy exudes the exact characteristics he describes in his book; being irrationally & personally attached to his ideas, ignoring simple & plain empirical data and defending those ideas in the face of overwhelming substantive evidence. Simply put, he refuses to admit when he is wrong and watching him dance around and argue semantics reminds me of an intelligent 8 year old trying to prove how smart he is. I listened to the full podcast on Spotify and he is Incredibly frustrating to listen to.
Pinker seems totally unaware of how much of a hypocrite he comes across as in just a few short minutes. The man is clearly suffering from the illusion that he is a free-thinker with valuable ideas.
I can almost guarantee you can show this guy data on multiple subjects that oppose his beliefs and he will have just as much cognitive dissonance as every group he is accusing of denying facts
Yup. Nobody, more than myself, wants to believe in the faxine's. I know 5 people with immediate and indicative, life impacting (including death) impacts. In canada, health care is "free". But my spouse was on a 2 year wait list, to have a painful joint operation. Yet I saw friends/family and "special's" get in for same or less immediately. And also in canada, some of the most environmentally, ethically, employee safe and morally conscious resource extraction is shelved for enviro "issues", but Saudi , the Africa's, India, Chyna can blight the earth to import back into Canada, the same or even worse, quality of resources. When you realize the dissonance, you can never unsee the agenda. You realize you are collateral damage in their game. And they don't care.
@@johnqpublic407 dude I like you haha. You’ve clearly done some research and although I wouldn’t say you or I are 100% correct I’ve came to the same conclusions on vaccines and the environment.
Coastal elitism is a powerful force. Dogmatic belief that they're 100% right about everything while their cities and forests burn around them. Meanwhile their hated inland enemies peacefully enjoy their holidays and lives, blissfully unaware of the havoc planned for them by their "betters"
"Smart" people live in cities? Apparently these smart people keep voting the same garbage over and over to have high crime rates, poverty, property taxes through the roof etc. Just ask the people of Detroit, Philadelphia, Memphis, San Francisco, St. Louis, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Cleveland how their leaders have taken care of them over the last 40-60 years all by Democrats and all in debt. Us dummies live where it's quite, no tent city crap, we not burning everything down because we don't get our way, and most importantly... We keep to ourselves and respect the people around us.
But it's a fact. You getting offended doesn't mean it's not fact. "Almost 90 percent of college grads live in urban counties, with more than 60 percent of them in large metros with over one million people. Just a bit more than one in ten college graduates reside in rural communities." - Source: Bloomberg " The Talent Dividend in Urban and Rural Areas" What you seem to be confusing is that people born in rural areas aren't necessarily dumber. It simply means as people attain degrees and become more highly educated, they move to cities as that's where they can get jobs and earn the most. This is exactly what he means when he says people are less rational. When you get offended or defensive about data you don't like, you ignore the clear reality - that is, you don't apply rational thought. Get out of your feelings Mike, Shane and Ben.
I like that he equates cities with education and suburbs and rural area with uneducated people who just haven’t been reached yet. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
@@Rai3 resources don’t make you more educated. There are plenty of good high schools and colleges in rural areas lmao. Remember when the United States spent $3 billion developing a ball point pen that could write in space, and Russia used a pencil? Resources don’t mean you’re intelligent.
@@jackmariner resources not as in school but access to information and speed of information. Like which area do you think gets more data? Also, poverty rates are higher in rural areas than urban areas.
@@Rai3 really? so farms with millions of dollars of heavy equipment are poorer than cities which contain slums, i'd like to see your evidence, cities attract poor people and the homeless, how many homeless encampments do you encounter in the country? your evidence most likely comes from the census, inner city poor people are more likely to ignore the census and the census does not count the homeless.
@@King_Flippy_Nips Lol you act like people in the rural areas invented this farming equipment and aren’t being operated by farming corporations. According to the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, in 2019 15.4% of people living in rural areas had an income below the federal poverty line, while those living in urban areas had a poverty rate of 11.9%. You ever driven through rural towns facing blight, or looked at the health outcomes of rural towns?
There’s this misconception of being educated these days. A person with a PH.D nowadays, is equivalent to a person with an Associate Degree back in the 90s.
Most "right wing" people I know don't dismiss climate change as being real. They dismiss the idea that it may not be something we can control, may not be something we can resolve, may not be something we SHOULD resolve at the current cost, and most certainly is a way to siphon money out of the economy, into the hands of a select few. Even more concerning than the loss of "rationality", is the loss of "subtlety" in conversations. Someone once likened that lack of subtlety to tyranny, in fact.
Dude sniffs his own farts while he justifies his fear of exploring genuinely dangerous ideas in the name of "being rational," when in fact he's just being cucked by the cage of haughty, bourgeois expectations of his peers.
For years they were arguing that it wasn’t even happening. Then they had to admit that yes it was happening, but they wouldn’t admit that humans were causing it. Now they admit that humans are causing it, but argue that we shouldn’t do anything about it. Good to see that they are slowly coming along to accepting it, but would be really nice to start hearing some solutions on the right to count the liberal proposals.
@@TonyTrupp This way of thinking is so insanely flawed. If you can't make a point without the inverse being as (or more) damaging to your stance, you'd be well-advised to not say it. For instance, we are now approaching our 40th year of the ice caps existing past the point where we were told they would be gone. I'm still waiting for the complete decimation of the "ozone layer", which will bring about mass death due to heat and ultraviolet exposures, and it's been over 30 years. I haven't seen a single instance of "acid rain", which was put forth as something that was coming within a "few years", over 30 years ago. The point is, in case your piddly brain can't follow it, that you can't take the extreme stance of a few people, and attribute it to everyone who differs with your stance in some way. You can't even take the extreme stance of a bunch of people and attribute it all to everyone who shares some opinions with them. Rationality, reasonability, and most importantly ... SUBTELTY AND UNDERSTANDING, allow people to avoid these types of traps. I'd recommend you pull your head out of your ass long enough to ponder the reality that you might not actually know everything on this subject.
When I was in college in the 80s, the thing then was that we were moving into a NEW ICE AGE! Climate changes, and how much humans impact that really hasn’t been determined. It’s all political and all about $$$.
My whole thing with climate change is how many of the catastrophists are vehemently against nuclear energy. Like if the world is going to end why not use nuclear? That’s why I don’t mind Pinker’s perspective on climate change so much, because he has a realistic solution. The rest of the podcast Pinker looks like a fool though.
Every once in while, JR has a guest on who is not a lunatic. This is that guest. And of course JR agrees with every single point he makes as JR is wont to do.
Pinker makes claims that are categorically false and then accuses anyone who doesn't agree with his false statements of being "irrational". That's what now passes for intellectual thought. 🙄
Yep. Given Epstein, the pedo link between the rich and powerful is there. And anyone who actually bothered to check the Wikileaks emails can see Pizagate is a "thing".
This guy's biases are evident right off the bat. He steers away from Joe's comments about academia and immediately goes to a right wing group that he can call out. I think he might be guilty of the exact type of bubbling he's calling out.
Which is what academics always do and how they even justify their power in the first place. Obviously an academic wants "data" and "competence" to rule the world, because he has a paper on his wall that conveniently says that he's one of the few people who are competent and have all the data.
The opening of this conversation is funny. One gy claiming that rationality is gone, and in the same breath, painting about 50% of the population with a broad brush. "They aren't on my side, therefore they aren't rational." Lol. Anyway, one thing I like about more right-leaning people is that they're willing to debate, which is *the core* of scientific inquiry. So when a scientist or self-proclaimed rational person eschews debate, that's when I know that they aren't as rational as they think they are.
I have to say that I was not very impressed with Pinker in this interview, beyond just this clip. They were talking about conspiracy theories; how they happen, who's susceptible, the likelihood (or unlikely) of them being true, etc. He seemed to be working VERY hard to stay within the lines of what/how someone "should" think about them. They got into "Q-anon," and why people would invest so deeply in something that any rational person not taken in by would at it as obviously absurd. Rogan said "one of the problems today with the conspiracy theories floating around is that a number of them turned out to be true." Pinker was at a loss at to what he could be talking about, and Rogan pointed out about Twitter not allowing anything about Hunter Biden to be posted, wouldn't allow the NY Post article to be linked to, the numerous stories by news outlets that proved to be little more than propaganda for a certain political side etc. Pinker just kept saying "well I'm talking about these large, vast conspiracies like 9/11 being an inside job. Chem trails, etc." He seems to have a VERY narrow view on what he'll consider to be a "conspiracy theory." Rogan pointed out correctly that "yeah okay, but these are conspiracies being spread by numerous outlets where they either know they aren't true, or aren't really interested in finding out if they're actually true." Rogan's point was "these are small ones compared to the JFK assassination, 9/11 truthers, etc. But these smaller ones naturally start to make the possibility that the larger ones being true seem more plausible to people." It was falling on dead ears and he just kept going back to the 9/11, JFK, etc. It was like he just refused to even consider that anything beyond orthodoxy, it actually got to the point I was almost embarrassed for him. It was as if his family was being held my a gunman whispering in his ear "you better toe the line or they're dead." It got to the point of absurdity. I've read things from Pinker over the years and listened to him on freakonomics and while I wasn't a "fan" (I didn't follow him that close), I at least respected him. I don't know if I do after just being halfway through the episode.
When Rogan pointed out how US Academia was quite hostile to hosting debate from people with contrasting (not even opposing) views. Pinker started talking about Q-Anon. So you are probably right that he is talking up his 'book' as it were. And perhaps not straightforward as we would like.
I'd love to hear Pinkert explain building 7. Explain Silverstein saying they decided to "pull" the building, admitting it was brought down by demolition. If that's the case, it OBVIOSLY must have been wired with explosives prior to 9/11 --- it typically takes days to do that. I've never been told who came in and wired the building in one hour. Why doesn't the person who wired it that day in record time come forward? Who did Silverstein call that afternoon who came in and did the impossible? Why isn't there video of the explosives vehicles and personnel wiring the building? So-called conspiracy theories are also known as valid unanswered, unexplained, questions.
Yes, to me he was very blatant in his defense of the narrative. He is right about how authority in science should be regarded. As in, there should be no authority in science. Just verifiable tests and data.
Very true. Most Human beings have difficulty being objective. You realise that most people are willfully irrational because the truth does not align with what they want to be true.
There's three issues IMO: Pride: when you can't look inward and reconsider your own convictions and identity, then you *must* presuppose the outsider is guilty. This leads to things like mind reading (racism, X-ism), or just willfull ignorance (doubling down). It's tribalism. Nominalism: the belief that all of our categories are purely social constructs and that the meaning of words, our ethics, etc, are constantly in flux. This means that words to them are simply a means to an end: power. They change definitions when they don't like connotations, or euphemize narratives simply to appeal to pathos like Mark Ruffalo using the Rittenhouse's assailants nickname, and refusing to use the P word because of the negative connotation. Ask the Nominalist if they believe in any universal categories, or ask them to define anything and they won't do it. They killed Socrates because he kept asking people to define words. Fear: lots of black pills going around because the sources of knowledge (media outlets) people thought were trustworthy were in fact not, and losing your source of knowledge creates a lost feeling and lots of anxiety. People would rather act like it's not happening.
Are you saying people in rural areas have more useless advanced degrees than people in urban areas with hundreds of thousands of dollars of student debt? I thought you said rural people were smarter
A hypothetical. People I don’t like, who have lied to me for decades, come up with a new “scary” thing that sounds an awful lot like the lies they’ve told me before. Furthermore, most of their predictions have failed to come true. And now I’m supposed to accept it because THEY claim it’s based on science.
As a curiosity, could you list some of the "scary" things we have been warned about by "them" while also saying who "they" are and then give documented proof of things we were lied to about? I kind of am done with baseless claims like yours because you didn't say anything at all. Give me details not just "they lied" because which they and what lie? These things matter when you are trying to make a point. And don't just say "the government" specify who in the government and what they lied about.
Climate change isnt denied by the "right wing" Caused by humans and can be stopped by intervention of humans is ridiculous in its huberous...yeah climate change is obvious, inevitable, and humans cannot stop what is happening to the entirety of our solar system. Humans arent responsible for the warming of the whole solar system are we????
@ndjfksnwvehsbdjckvkkfss You are paid troll and we are onto you. JRE is a threat to the information establishment. And you are here solely to sow division.
@@Peterdeskater100 i could name a coyple off the top of my head, like the origin of the vaarus and the vaccine passports. Only a year ago these were considered crazy conspiracy theories.
Exactly, if it were a hundred years ago he would be saying that eugenicists are rational and people who doubt it are idiots. CO2 driven anthropogenic climate change is a theory, not a fact.
@@gdub8568 This, there is a natural cycle, however they like to whine we DO NOT have the data to even slightly suggest we are having an impact with our emissions.
I love Joe Rogan but I must say that Stephen Pinker's classification of 9/11 Truthers among the groups that are irrational and illogical is misplaced and actually contradicts rationality and logic based upon real evidence. The collapse of Building 7 is one of the best examples of cognitive dissonance. Pinker appears to have fallen into the very group-think trap that he argues against. Some conspiracies are real and belief in their existence is based on a logical review of the facts. Joe should have called out Pinker on that distinction.
100%. That's why he's backing up old bill Gates whose father was a philanthropist he's just carrying on the family business to get rid of certain DNA off this planet
Beta males have taken over America the number one reason we're about the collapse sorry to say you can't have women in beta males running society it makes for a week society simple as it gets
@@danc8900 To be fair, I imagine Epstein had many people he used to give himself authenticity without them being involved in his sicko activity. Just a thought. 🤓
The guy who wrote a book about rational thinking just said that “scientists and experts aren’t willing enough to show their work”, while simultaneously any dissenting viewpoint, study, or evidence is censored or discredited. Joe, you seem more likely to play hardball when your own reputation is on the line (Gupta), but this guy gets zero pushback. Disappointing.
It’s not denial of climate change. It’s denial that the extent in which weather doomsayers have been predicting and wrong. And they are against the thought that a bunch of stupid politicians who can’t balance a budget should be given more money to “fix” the problem.
Climate and weather are two very different things. Also It's a bit of a myth that climate scientists have been getting all their predictions wrong. Occasionally the media will pick up on a prediction from 40 years ago that was particularly off. But most forecasts have actually been quite accurate. If anything, scientists have been alarmed by how much more quickly the planet has heated that they previously thought it would.
There problem is conservatives are using media liberals blunders to debate real science by real scientists. It’s like the ‘global cooling’ fiasco that conservatives bring up to dismiss climate change, when in fact that was a media creation, not scientists.
@Matt the company’s can fund themselves and the money the government gives them can go towards renewables, research and innovation etc. did I say anywhere to shutdown and stop using fossil fuels immediately?
I was dating a woman that was a liberal in the puritanical sense.being someone that’s open to persuasion has given me perspectives on both political spectrums.she became hysterical when I tried to show her evidence she was wrong.obviously things didn’t work out
I am with a now christian ex gay dominican woman whos pretty far left and is also a teacher. We dated prior to all that decent into madness, the lady even had a MURAL of biden in her house 🤣, she knew exactly my stance on all that, being a traditional catholic. In less than a year all those belifes exploded and she was stuck with some free loading woman living in her house. Shes a rare case of her experiencing ALL that far left stuff and having it all explode on her, and she came to reality all on her own. Its good she experienced it first hand though rather than just me staying on her about it. Everythings pretty good now, shes very rational these days
I couldn't really listen after he asserted mRNA vaccines were evidence of rationality. They are evidence of little more than a corrupt news media, corrupt medical establishment and the desire of the government to eliminate both freedom and rationality.
@@erwind1257 you’re comparing legacy vaccines to these novel ones? Please don’t. Usual vaccine clinical trials last 8 years. These are novel tech and only had 5 months. Dig into the tech too.
Interesting that he considers education separate from indoctrination when these days there is very little room for questioning the narrative in higher education which would imply it is closer to indoctrination.
Only time will tell if mRNA vaccines and the way they are being coerced is rational. And the climate is always changing, we have trees under the ice in northern Canada. Paying more taxes to the government will not change a thing, it's just another tax. I'm more concerned about pollution and consumerism, that is a problem in every single community on earth.
I think mRNA would have been widely accepted if it wasn’t for covid. It’s a shame because it’s a potentially revolutionary technology that will always have stain on its rep
The problem is, in order to be rational you need to *always* leave open the possibility that you could be wrong in your beliefs and assumptions, as the most irrational people are the ones absolutely sure they are right, and this guy does not seem like he's open to being wrong. (And just because someone makes a better argument doesn't necessarily mean they are correct.) I personally believe we are having an impact on the climate, but I certainly could be wrong. While the most outlandish conspiracies are probably unlikely to be true, that doesn't mean they are impossible, so just because I don't believe them likely doesn't mean I can 100% say they are BS, because there sure is a lot of stuff I don't know, and don't even know I don't know!
Exactly, also he made the some sort of comment when he referred to the pope and convincing him that Jesus isn’t the son of god. I could be wrong but it seemed to me as if he was saying it as you were saying, he couldn’t be wrong. Just came off as arrogant in my opinion. I know there are many rational arguments against religion but in the end we all know a small amount compared to the universe
I’d like to think most people believe in ideas from both sides of politics but the media constantly stokes to push the two sides apart and create division. I hate to identify myself as one or the other because it generates an idea of what I believe to someone that is false, I would now just say ask me what my stance is on something and I’ll give my opinion.
the only way to know is with communication. i suspect that the real essence of "climate denial" is people trying to avoid the possibility of government intervention. Scepticism, even if its deeply rooted to disbelieving everything, is very important. Calling it irrationality is a propaganda game.
This podcast inflates the issue more. The fact that the very first argument is based on the left and right spectrum, is the worst way to address it. Continuing the divide of people, as if someone cannot just think for themselves and have their own interpretation their just labelled left or right or far right is immediately the go to measurement. Move away from this political warfare and come together to discuss each other's beliefs and find ways to fix it from there instead of immediately labelling people.
Yeah, was disappointed when Joe made it a left/right thing. He definitely had a bee in his bonnet on this one. He was probably on a comedown from lack of weed.
Exactly. And what these two say without saying it correctly, it’s their side (climate change leftist) who censor and block rational debate. So they label the right in a political frame (not good), then go full political on them to shut them down in reality
Pinker and Joe seem to be arguing with conservative straw men from 25 years ago. I'm very conservative and run mostly in conservative circles and I don't know many people (nor am I one) who disbelieve climate change exists or that human beings contribute to it. The general consensus on the right today is moreso that climate alarmism is an exaggeration of the facts (e.g. always taking the annual IPCC's worst case scenario as the consensus reality) and a disagreement on solutions.
Okay… my complaint is he’s describing “intelligence” when he’s talking about “rational” at the start. Rational is more like the ability to take an argument apart and analyze it for truths and assumptions. It took intelligence and skill to develop technology… not rationalism exactly
You don't mean "rationalism." You mean _reason._ Rationalism is a theory of philosophy that describes reason as the basis of all certainty. Rationalism didn't create reason - it was in a sense derived from reason. Reason had to exist before rationalism is.
I think its completely rational to be heavily skeptical of any government officials. Money doesn't just buy politicians... Doctors and Scientists are not immune to vast sums of money and or death threats.
@@DSPHistoricalSociety exactly, and the thing with science is you can re-test results to see if you can reach the same conclusion. Math and science is hard to bend the truth with, when you can test it to see if it's true. And Science isn't just one guy in a lab saying "listen to what I say, it is gospel". It is a collective consensus across the cohort.
@@maxfairclough3600 it is not a collective census, many scientists disagree. Plus the costs to do these science trials is very high and the funding often comes from companies who have a vested interest in a desired outcome. For some random scientist at a small university to try to challenge the results of a study funded with tens of millions of dollars from PepsiCo or nestle or glaxosmithkline is out of the realm of possibility. People forget that science is done by people, who are very easily swayed by money or biases or preconceived notions and often overlook many factors and we often forget that science is more of a compass than a map in most cases.
I listened on Spotify and then came here specifically for the comments for the sole purpose of making sure it wasn’t just me who felt like this dude believed he was the smartest man alive.
@@matthewbeat first time I have ever read comments on a Joe Rogan video and it’s just everyone acting as the smartest person to ever touch a keyboard blasting someone who doesn’t agree with the lololol
@John Ward I did the exact same thing. He talked about how you can't get anyone to change their mind, but I doubt anyone could change his mind on any of his beliefs.
I love this comment. Not just because it articulates exactly the thought process that brought me here, but also because it just gave me such an awesome laugh. Out loud. LOL.
right to climate change to call people deniers, yet we can all see it changing but how much responsibility is on humanity and to what degree should we care, back to the previous guest he stated the temps were 12 degrees warmer and Joe was trying to call him a punk because of truth... facepalm
There's no better podcast than JRE, i find people of every kind for all topics i'm interested in. it's mostly rational and objective also very diverse.
Lately it's been really difficult to find anyone anymore who doesn't have this delicate defensive "I can't be wrong" aura around them at all times. People aren't open to anything they aren't comfortable with and no one ever approaches problems with the presumption that the answer could be something neutral instead of "this" or "that." You know you're on the right track when you agree and disagree with plenty of beliefs from both the left and the right. That means you have at least a bit of that good ol' integrity left.
I agree wholeheartedly. In early 2020, when the pandemic hit... I 'lost' something like 50-100 online friends (and some family). My gf--well, now EX--and her family also cajoled, ignored and ghosted me as well. All because I was expressing concerns that things were 'showing signs of 1918' (not to mention, I became sick with an EARLY VERSION of C-19--no joke). *rolls eyes* Everyone told me that I was a moron, hypochondriac, and that things would blow over in a few weeks (mostly because 'Trump said so'). *ROLLS EYES* Obviously, they were super correct, and I was dead wrong (speaking of 'dead', some people I know died from C19). The pandemic 'ended' in mid-2020, lol. Nothing I predicted came true (rolls eyes again). Science is also bogus, lol.
Sadly it's because lying and being bad faithed has become normalized to the point that people feel they can't afford to be too open. Especially with a perceived ideological opponent
I think most people agree and disagree with both sides about things, it’s just that those are normal people and you never really hear from normal people on the internet. I also think that when it comes to serious topics most people just (unfortunately) resort to making jokes about people who hold views they disagree with, then all their comments get likes further reinforcing that attitude.
Some things I might agree with the left on: animal rights, wildlife preservation, habitat protection, expanding parkland, destroying the power of oligarchs.
I think we used to know this before everything got too overwhelming and confusing: the Internet has allowed people who know nothing to share their _opinion_ as fact to potentially millions of people. This has made people always need to have an answer as opposed to admitting that they really know nothing about a subject. I just did it myself.
Yep, expertise used to matter but social media has diluted it. It's become about demagoguery, which is very worrying as that's what brought down the Athenians and collapsed their democracy. And we saw that on Jan 6th how far that can go..
@@quietquitter6103 I don't think you could say Steven Pinker just spoke out of turn. He's an expert on the subject to some degree. He _is_ a cognitive psychologist and linguistic expert.
@@quietquitter6103 haha fair enough. I always think it's good that Rogan at least makes an attempt to not chat shit and he quite rarely says something completely stupid.
He's a typical groupthink liberal drone. When he said he believed the Epstein story I almost spit my coffee out. This Pinker guy cannot be taken seriously.
@@guyfawkes8384 No he can't. I was a fan of Edward Wilson, who died very recently at an old age, and who'd taught at Harvard too. And I's seen Pinker appear with Wilson, debate him, etc. So I thought he had Wilson's support, or was credible in some way (Wilson was known as a great mind of the 20th century). But clearly, Pinker is just on Rogan representing Harvard money, lobbying. Which is a shame. No, he can no longer be taken seriously (even if we see Rogan showing him lots of deference).
I don't usually post but i am tired of hearing how rural America is uneducated, I live in rural America and my entire household have 1 to 2 degrees, and EVERY neighbor within a mile has at least one to two members in the household that have college degrees. Rural America is not uneducated
Funny how these "educated people" really know nothing about the country in which they live in. They might know something about the city they live in, but they have no idea about he country...
@@brentharrington8134 where ever there's anarchy, might makes right and the strong take over to rule over everyone else. Example violent gangs claiming the land their turf and demanding a fee from everyone to live on it. No thanks
It's great that he called out right wing garbage, but he wasn't "rational" enough to call out the garbage on the left wing side. Completely destroys his credibility in my opinion.
It's funny how all the guys that were on those Epstein flight logs or known to have gone to his Island always talk s*** about conspiracy theories.. lol. Cuk
I think Pinker should remember to apply that to himself and his peers as well. Doesn't sound like he feels he and those of similar opinions are subject to the same logic issues.
Steve and his Thuckberg crew are automatically right, apparently, just cuz they will deign to explain nicely to those deplorable blue collar types just how c o r r e c t they are and w h y .
It's good to see someone who is right about everything.Hopefully he can get people who are wrong about everything to realize how wrong they are.It's a very noble cause to get those who disagree with you to stop being deniers.
He kind of redeemed himself a lil bit at the end of this clip though. I am curious to hear his thoughts on the covid scamdemic . Would love to hear him try to protect the establishment & their AUTHORITARIAN BS we can smell from miles away.
You can believe in humans affecting the atmosphere to a certain extent while also believing there are politicians trying to exploit that idea for drastic changes in law and power.
Yes you can. But a crises? That’s the huge giveaway. Never let a crisis go to waste. Even a manufactured one. This is nothing nothing more than the reichstag fire
But not that politicians are being paid to deny the science right? It would be stupid to believe the politician who accepted campaign donations from big oil, would deny fact-based climate science because of those 'donations' yeah?
@@scottymeffz5025 lol, you could say the same about big green. It’s become a far bigger political machine than big oil. Bet you can’t tell me the reason why.
@@scottymeffz5025 mmm no. Not misguided just know that everything is a sham. Serious question though. Do you know how unprofitable green energy was, is and will be? So poor that they literally have to sell futures. How to you make futures a sure thing? Eliminate the competitors. How? Fossil fuels are bad. Now, do a little research, and see which politicians are heavily invested in green energy. Seriously. Look at it. And draw you own conclusions.
Hi Joe! Coming from The Netherlands, I can tell you politicians here form coalitions and the leading parties still are able to create division. When viewing the debates I see they are focused on managing public opinion. Sincerely and openly posed concerns are dismissed using communication techniques known by any NLP expert. The structure of debates with limited interrupts and limited time helps the establishment to get away with almost anything. On one side it's funny to watch, but realizing those people actually decide how we should behave and comply really give me the creeps. I see them in ensemble with the media using traumatisation as a weapon on the citizens. Thanks for another interesting interview! Keep doing what ya doing :)
The far bigger threat right now, by several orders of magnitude, is the globalist institutionalist left, which has a stranglehold on most of the West's power centers and relentlessly OCDs about covid beyond all statistical literacy.
I am also from the Netherlands and can attest to this. Political debates are pure rhetoric and never attempt to bridge the fundamental gaps between different positions.
@@mouwersor I agree this is largely the case however it does not quite account for the verity that people do in fact change their minds in the course of a lifetime -- just perhaps not in real time during a debate very often. People shift by listening to and reading and thinking through the arguments. Some people anyway. A certain (depressingly) large % are incapable of independent thought, or too scared to front the essential dishonesty of their positions.
I’m from Canada and can say the same thing here unfortunately. Although we have 6 main political parties there are only two dominant parties that pass the torch back and forth. Until a government can implement rank choice voting there’s not much benefit to a multi party system. And corporate money needs to be removed from politics for democracy’s sake
The death of rationality and comprehension skills displayed online is one of the most unpredictable and surprising things I can imagine. People decided they can float the most blatant lie for power if the whole tribe is in on it.
Unpredictable and surprising? Have you seen, what seems to be a silly comedy movie, "Idiocracy"? Check when it was made. Apparently some have seen it coming.
You aren't expected to know "Science" if you agree with Global Warming/Climate Change doctrine. But, if you disagree with or digress from the Doctrine, you better be ready to list every justification scientifically.
Dude sniffs his own farts while he justifies his fear of exploring genuinely dangerous ideas in the name of "being rational," when in fact he's just being cucked by the cage of haughty, bourgeois expectations of his peers.
At 7:25 Pinker says, without a hint of irony: "you believe in your own bias, your own clique, your own coalition, your own tribe, you're own sect"; and, at 7:33 "you paint the other side as stupid and evil for having different beliefs"; and, at 7:40 "there's a perverse kind of rationality in being a champion for your cause because you get brownie points from all your friends" ...whilst characterising those who oppose his views in exactly the way he's described!!! (and marketing his new book? trolling for reactions?) So, is it "irrational" for us to ask "Who are your friends? How many and what type of brownie points do you get?" Or is it "rational" to deploy the logical fallacy of *poisoning the well*?
@@theycallmefingers2 Actually, many of Pinker's historical commentaries on evolutionary psychology are good, but this one has a very bad smell around it.
Pinker apparently believes in zero conspiracies. That super smart and super rich people are 10 steps ahead - which really just skips over rational and becomes obvious lolol
I vaguely remember 1940 something happened in Germany where some selected evidence pointed towards a group of people being "evidently" less than others. I remember it turning out really bad for a lot of people.
@@Alticroo There was a "scientific" underpinning to what happened in Germany in the 1930-45, and it came from the U.S. and was called "Eugenics". If you don't know about it, please research it. It was a garbage science that you could actually get degrees in, and it was here, we did it, we were responsible for it, and it provided the "science" behind the motives.
What scares me more than anything when it comes to these touchy subjects today is that so many people seem to only care about what they want to be true rather than knowing what the truth really is.
"The extremes hate each other more" is half right at best, disingenuous at worst. The Left has gone off the deep end with irrational hatred and violence. The Right has remained relatively stable and reasonable by any comparison.
Part of the problem is that there’s a big stigma to simply saying “I don’t know,” which is the most rational conclusion in many circumstances.
"The only thing I truly know is that I know nothing."
-Socrates
Not knowing is life. I wish this humans would realize that and you know… learn of which you know not.
Not knowing is life. I wish this humans would realize that and you know… learn of which you know not.
I wouldn't call it a stigma. Most of the time, it's not that you're punished for saying you don't know. It's that others get rewarded for being blowhards, so there's a pressure to dishonestly claim expertise. Also, checking their knowledge is hard, time consuming work, so most humans believe humans who project confidence even when they have no business having any.
Or 'I have no basis for an opinion' which shifts the onus away from what appears to be an individual failure to the problem of the lack of clean data from which to draw a conclusion.
An educated man knows what he has been taught...
An intelligent man questions what he has been taught.....
A wise man doesn't fall for either/or fallacies
Silly platitudes aside id guess intelligence is not just questioning but using the education and questioning seeking facts to prove or disprove their or others proofs, but I’m just a talking chimp. Happy Christmas or what ever your holiday
@@theundead1600 education =/= intelligence.
Pinker,friend of Epstien is the person u like?
@@mikehw7526 Ya, wonder why JR didn't ask about the Epstein connection....
I was hoping he would rationally say;
"Epstein didn't kill himself"
ruclips.net/video/b5lLFAlz4fc/видео.html
Lol he “rationally” believes that it was suicide even though he considers Epstein a “fraud.” If Epstein was a “fraud” and potentially a Mossad agent, why is it crazy to think he was killed? Aren’t pedophiles killed in prisons and jails all the time? Aren’t intelligence agents ordered to kill themselves if captured too?
Ironically, Pinker did used to hang out with Epstein back in the day.
He brought up not being able to convince the pope about jesus and brought up QANON crazy and laughed at the idea of pizzagate while Maxwell is on trial. Pinker the puppet.
"Rational" to him would likely be to blindly believe the official narrative.
In the time of tyranny, telling the truth is a Revolutionary act.
What tyranny?
@@sspbrazil someone hasn't researched UK, Canada, Australia, Russia, China or US or many other countries' governments.
@@ianthescientist8827 like I said, what Tyranny? You’re incredibly lucky if you live in all those countries mentioned, save for maybe China which is the only country you’ve mentioned that even has a shred of tyranny, but keep pretending you know what that word means.
@@sspbrazil Boris Johnson is trying to pass a bill that will allow police to search people on the spot for no given reason, and without consent. That fucking tyranny. At least that's a part of it
@@acidducks9476 the key word is “trying” which means it has to go through parliament, in Russia and China there would not be the process, it would just be put into place. That’s my point, anyone living in the UK, US, Australia and Canada are incredibly lucky that they can go out and protest these things and that you have a Parliament or Congress that have to pass these things because there are countries in the world that don’t have these freedoms.
He talks about being rational, then throws out the most outrageous fringe beleifs to broadly paint his opposition.
Another grifter on the scene
Throws out irrational beliefs, lol
Right, this guy comes off real douchey
not sure that's his only opposition. He talked mostly about right-wing conspiracies, although he's talk against sex science denial
exactly. he’s obviously obsessed with climate change and dismissive of anyone who thinks differently
I'm just enjoying witnessing the extreme ends of the hair spectrum in this clip.
Finally, someone gets to the real essence of this clip. ;)
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
😂
😂
😂
When I was a student, I learn that irrationality is a natural brain tendency, a la Kahneman. But when academics give examples of irrationality, 100% of their examples are of right-wing irrationality. No one dares to point to left-wing irrationality. This podcast was a deja vu of that experience.
So true! Someone stumping for a return to rationality while scolding all biases from one ideological spectrum is peak snobby academia
@@fuckerz221 Thanks for getting it! This was my life for 25 years in academia. They are hiding behind the mantle of science, but it's like the shaman of the past who got to tell everyone what "THE science" says, while using it as a hierarchical control tool.
No one will point out the left sides hypocrisy or bullshit. They have a mob mentality that is scary and totally irrational. Honestly both sides are psychotic if left unchecked and given total power, were supposed to balance each other out and have a give and take type set up. Now people just oppose something simply because it came from the mouth of an opposing party member, even if it lines up with their true beliefs and is helpful for all, they argue it. They wont allow reason, middle ground or peace between themselves. Each party wants to totally rule the other under their feet and nothing short of total dominion over that pesky "enemy" will be good enough for them. Its truly scary to see both groups think each other are a danger to society, this brings war and genocide every time! Be cautious people, this can happen again...
I think Rogan didn´t understand what Pinker said early in the video, but in one point he said that climate change beliefs are more determined from your political standpoint than from rationality. And the example he gives is actually that the right-wing can be really rational and intelligent to defend their standpoint, whereas the left wing when explaining, fails miserably, saying shit like: oh its the ozone layer, but can´t actually explain it.
@@popfan7676 You're right. But most of it was the other way. I know what you mean about host and guest not understanding each other. Each carries the convo where they want it to go.
He totally lost me when he said governments are becoming more rational 😂 riiiiiiight
Glad I’m not the only one who caught that bs.
I disagree. I do not think that there is a lack of rationality in government. Rather, there is a disconnect in values between representative government and its electorate. Lobbying plays a large factor in this unfortunately, but also the increasing variance of values among the population plays a role in this. When we look at the policy measures taken according to their underlying values, policy is getting more and more rational and data-driven. The problem is that these values do not correspond with the values of the majority of citizens.
They are though, it's just that they realigned their purpose. If you think that the role of government officials is to do right by it's all people in the country you are right, it's a false statement, however, if you consider their aim to be: doing ` good` to their party lines and supporters, they have indeed become way more rational and are using all the tricks in the book to promote their own agenda.
I bet he was referring to governments outside of the U.S.
Yeah that was painfully stupid
He's very against the "conspiracy theories" but what about that one where he flew several times on the epstine plane ?
Nother Epstein frequent flyer huh? 😆😆😆
This is also the reason his replies on Twitter have been off since his name came out with Epstein. Kinda wack Joe doesn't care...
T-rump was a frequent flyer on the Epstein love plane .
@@bearschmidt3180 Nope. Clinton flew like 27 times. Trump flew a total of 0 times. Facts.
@@Ninja_Skillz no . Trump flew in his plane , Epstein's pilot clearly testified that
"There isn't a cabal of pedophiles .... in the democrat party" ... Dude, Steven, You're literally in the Netflix movie about Epstein.
I wonder what his take is on the Cuomo brothers.... LOL
@@KRIPP548 He probably feels about the Cuomos like the rest of ua feel about Willy Wonka or puppies.
"the democrat party" ...Dude, Christopher, Trump is literally in the photos of Epstein.
@@katanaman444 they are all scum
@@katanaman444 of course he conveniently leaves that out
It's hard not to notice when they talk about Epstein.. How uncomfortable he gets and how much he tries to dismiss it
And people who weren't involved act MUCH differently
Reminder: Stephen Pinker was on Epsteins flight logs, and he aided Epsteins legal defense against sex trafficking charges in 2007, helping Epstein avoid prison.
He is a smart man. Especially when I heard him down play Epstein. Throwing as much subtle water on that fire. He had the unfortunate opportunity to have met him. I am positive that there are some key victims that were threatened and paid extremely mind blowingingly well to disappear and shut up. He. Probably falls under their protection.
@@asimhussain8716 watch mohammad hijab
dead right and creepy
Probably helping himself avoid prison too
@jacob they're both elves
"Everyone is stupid, except me."
Homer Simpson
One of Dunning Kruger College's finest.
🤣🤣🤣
For someone that preaches rationality, this dude sure had some preconceived ideas about anyone that doesn't believe the government issued story.
He's a left-wing academic, so he can only get so good as a thinker.
Woosh
Your the dude from Jujitsu class
Agreed, and I’ll go a step further; he’s a typical arrogant man of “science.” All of his examples and hypotheticals of irrationality were of the right, and Christians. For example, his example of telling the Pope that “Jesus is not the son of God.” You don’t think that was a dig on God and believers?! Yes it was, this guy is an arrogant fool.
gee, wonder why
I was really enjoying listening to this podcast while fishing the other day. Two hours in when they started talking about UFO’s, I was caught off guard when Pinker said that he doesn’t think a fighter pilot would be the right person to judge weather something looks strange in the sky or not. TWO HOURS OF MY FUCKING LIFE WASTED.
Yes, very rational isn't he?
@@jackbush8223 THATS A FACT JACK
The entire episode was him putting his stamp of approval on every "official statement" line and opinion, at times to the point of incredulity. I stopped listening when he said that from everything he's seen, it's his opinion that Theo Epstein committed suicide. At Rogan's surprised "really"!? He said "it just makes more sense that he was able to do it because the guards screwed up and weren't paying attention (or something to that effect).
When presented with the cameras being shut off when it happened, the medical examiner saying the ligature marks are what you find more with strangling/garroting, not hanging, etc., he did some dance away from it. He did that with pretty much anything that had convincing evidence, but that didn't jive with the official statement by authorities in the government or news media.
As a rule I agree that more often than not there aren't grand conspiracies, and the not elaborate the more this is true. But I'm a sucker for a good argument, every once in a while one will lead me to change my opinion, not often but it does happen. He was hanging his hat on every official position regardless of how thin it may be and how much good evidence that runs counter to it is.
I've heard him several times on Freakonomics and have read some articles from him. I don't agree with him on a lot of things and I did find that he had a tendency to give opinions even when his knowledge on the subject was limited at best, but I still respected his opinion. I've known of him for 20+ years, and in this single interview he managed to completely change my opinion to him, and not for the better.
Edit: See, I can have an opinion changed every once in a while.
@@timwhite5562 Oh aye, Pinker is 110% a corrupt establishment shill and scientism popularizer par excellence. Trained through extensive blackmail on Epstein Island like the rest of them, to say whatever the men in dark robes and masks want him to say. I think it's no theory at this point, it's just an obvious conspiracy. It's an emerging global technocratic order that has Pinker paying lip service to it, and plenty other popular figures , politicians, celebrities, you name it.
@@jackbush8223 what you are describing is just capitalism
I detest how he differentiated city people as “educated, hipster, and knowledge workers” to suburban and country folk as “less educated.” I remember listening to Jordan Peterson in a lecture warning about the dangers of Ideologues like Pinker.
48 Laws of Power | Robert Greene | The Cult | ruclips.net/video/a2PoKFuNX_0/видео.html ?vds dsdsa
ruclips.net/video/b5lLFAlz4fc/видео.html
I also like how people like this want to lecture Africans about caring for the environment, there is some real irony there.
Especially when city people are the biggest perpetrators
Most ironic comment I've read in a while....🤣🤣
Im against anything I'm not allowed to talk about.
All of the hot button issues that get you cancelled are indicators that the subject is being curated.
In the same way, if you want to know who's in power, find out who you aren't allowed to criticize.
I just want to eat and pay bills.
We need Jesus.
ruclips.net/video/b5lLFAlz4fc/видео.html
Bro wtf. I literally watched this when it first was uploaded and all the comments were about his connection to a certain billionaire island man that enjoys youthful flesh. All these comments just disappeared.
@@westonscheer5691
I'm not getting my instructions about angels and demons from John Hagee, thanks
Considering the levels of corruption among a lot of the "experts" these days, his trust in them doesn't seem very rational to me.
The moment scientists said that right-wing demonstrations were "covid surge events" but BLM demonstrations were no such thing, this showed how much they were guided by "rationality" and the scientific method lol.
Bam!
You mean the experts you don’t agree with?!
Well they have to look out for each other, which seems rational to me.
@@lowkeyelena221 Probably the "experts" that state something as fact and then backpedal a few weeks or even years later as their facts turn into falsehoods. Fauci is a prime example.
Many right wingers don’t deny climate change, but the amount of human contribution (which is in fact debatable), and to what extent government policy can correct for it is highly debatable.
Science tells us “what is”
Science doesn’t tell us “what we ought to do”
Big difference.
Very good
The question how much we contribute, and how policy could change it, are *is* questions, though. The first is even purely scientific.
Part of the *is* questions do leave science a bit, since politics is a lot more messy. Our models for measures often fail since they don't consider how people actually change their behaviors (e.g. using loopholes, abusing new laws). And it's even harder to tell how it would affect, say, Chinese emissions.
But those are not *ought* questions. An ought question would be (for instance), if we could easily limit warming to 2.5 degrees but have to spend a lot to limit it to 1.5 degrees, how much of that is worth spending.
The climate changed because they changed it. If the govt really wanted to stop global warming or stationary domes of high pressure which are creating droughts, all they would need to do is ban the ionospheric heaters which are in use all over the planet.
@@ashleylala4293 In the past 30 years, how much has the planet warmed, and be specific? The answer to that may surprise you.
The majority of scientists, world wide, across agencies and in multiple disciplines disagree with you. You are right that what we should do in response is debatable. It is not debatable that human activity is main driver in the current rate of climate change.
How to make someone want to physically harm you:
1985: Insult their mother
2021: Disagree with them
You mean disagree with the left. Not a lot of Trump supporters out there beating people up for wearing the wrong kind of hat or sitting in the coloreds-only section at school.
the death of the yo mamma joke is a cultural travesty..
@@vladimirhorowitz
The right is just as violent only a moron stuck in a cult could be as ignorant
@@MrShanester117 Perhaps that's true. I just haven't seen any evidence for it, other than the "MAGA country!" white supremacists who attacked poor Jussie Smollett with a noose in Chicago.
@@vladimirhorowitz lmaooooooo
If you still mock conspiracies at this point you're probably not the beacon of rationality you think you are
It’s the old adage. if it goes wrong you’re crazy, if it goes right you’re a genius. It’s best to stay true to what you you believe in deep down. Of course there’s just naive people that enjoy the oh so powerful drug of blissful ignorance. But if you can rationally conclude through studies and facts that what you believe in is a good cause that you can whole heartedly support. This man seems fairly intelligent and well spoken. He might be a bit naive to conspiracies. But let’s be honest 80-90% of conspiracies are bullshit. Some have truth but u use facts and evidence to prove them not a hunch.
@@carterwebster5866 I would elaborate further but RUclips deletes my comments lol
48 Laws of Power | Robert Greene | The Cult | ruclips.net/video/a2PoKFuNX_0/видео.html ?v ssdsd34asda
We need Jesus.
This is the best comment.
At this point I think all of us have a fantastic nose for utter made up bullshit theories VS the very easily demonstrable shady conspiracy bullshit going on in our world.
Lumping them both together has been a standard tactic to dismiss the blatant exposure of real world criminal behaviour and conspiracy.
“All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force.”
- George Orwell
"We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
"But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us."
- Neil Postman
Australia, Austria, Germany.
@@aaronwebb1548 Yep, i think Hurley's point is more important than Orwell's one. I found 1984 quite disappointing because his conclusion of the inaptitude to rebel from within the system didn't rly add up for me. Plus the fact that, in 1984, the vast majority of people is kinda free to go around and do their things (even tho there lives sucks).
Where as in Huxley's world, the system is way more viscous, realistic and relevant to our society nowadays (imo).
But still, same conclusion: this wouldn't hold, and Dostoevsky kinda have the last word in this matter for me: mankind, would burn anything of those societies down to the ground in the end, just to prove that they're not a piano key (yes that's not exactly Dostoevsky's point, but it still work here imo).
Liberalism is the #1 reason why America has political extremism.
Guess which part shuts down college debates, attacks police, doxs people they don’t like, burns cities ?
@@akeldama09 Yeah, look at Boston. Cambridge burns 24/7. It barely stopped police attacks enough to invent and produce a vaccine in no time. Now that you're safe it can go back to shutting down debates.
As soon as he described people living in cities as "well educated and smart" and people living rurally/suburbs as "less well educated and not so smart" he disproved his entire narrative
its the truth lol
But it’s statistically true - it doesn’t mean if you took a city person off of the street and a person living rurally off of the street, the city person would be smarter than the rural person EVERY TIME.
But if you made the bet that a city person would be smarter/has achieved a higher degree of formal education than a rural person, you would be right more times than not.
Educated does not make smart.
AJ Jacob lack of education doesn’t help.
@Ladiesman1447 only education in texts books. As far as human knowledge to survive and be self sufficient goes away closer you get to the cities. People prefer one of the other,and their both within their right. I'll take a mechanic over a BA graduate for life purpose.
Has this guy been living in a whole since the beginning of COVID? How could you live through the past two years and not question how weird everything is now?
I would love to see how he explains China’s viral labs or Epstein. It would be entertaining to see him forsake everything he just said in seconds, and he would.
He gets into Epstein later in the episode. His opinion? He thinks the official findings of suicide were what happened. He said "it's more likely that it's just a matter of prison employees not doing their job properly or paying attention." (Not his exact words, but pretty close).
Rogan's "really?!" Was kind of funny. He asked him "so even after the fact that the cameras had mysteriously stopped working when he was allegedly hanging himself or the fact a medical examiner's found that ligature mark is inconsistent with hanging?"
To be honest, I haven't followed the story, at all really, so I don't know what they found and can only go by what I hear. I understand what he was saying about the mark on the neck; that with a hanging it's usually up really high because of how the body hangs, as opposed to being low when someone gets garroted. But I don't know how they found him. I know people who commit suicide in confined spaces like jails don't always hang themselves like you typically see on the gallows. They won't have anywhere to attach the end of whenever they're using, so they'll tie it to a bar or doorknob, get on their knees and lean forward, basically strangling themselves. So it is plausible that he could have had those marks, but still killed himself.
But all the other shit isn't as easy to explain.
The entire interview was what you're seeing on display here. LITERALLY everything he came at believing the "official" story, including ones that are obviously not correct. It got tedious and I only lasted half the interview.
@@timwhite5562 Good to know, and that is why I didn’t want to watch this episode. Dude thinks he is smarter than everyone else by a pre-meditated assertion that everyone who questions what is reported is doing so because they are unintelligent. And, therefore, he must be the smarter one.
The irony is, it’s the other way around. He is making determination of value and facts at the behest of someone else and thinking he the most intelligent and informed. This is the hallmark trait of a literate imbecile, in that, he can read about stuff, but he can’t really comprehend and reconcile information because his cognition is running in reverse. It’s literally a bias-driven form of mental processing.
The prison Epstein was sent to has everything specifically designed so inmates can't hang themselves. They wear clothes and use bed sheets made of a sort of paper that crumbles apart if you try to use it to make a rope you can hang yourself with. It would take an extraordinary level of incompetence for Epstein to have been able to hang himself in there, especially considering how high profile an inmate he was.
They get into the David Fravor UFO sighting later too, and he admits he hasn't looked into it at all and doesn't know a single detail about it but says he can rationally dismiss the entire thing out of hand because of some intellectual principle that it must be false because the vast bulk of UFO sightings that came before it have been fake or wrong. Also mentions Mick West and gives the same tired arguments Neil deGrasse Tyson uses. Then he shifts the conversation to false memories and some student who thought they were abducted and probed by aliens when the only thing Joe is saying is that these Navy pilots and technicians saw something weird and we don't know what it is. No one brought up aliens until Pinker did. It's like he wasn't listening to what was being said to him and jumped straight to some generic talking points.
Strikes me as someone who's skeptical to the point of just being dense.
@@flynnoflenniken7402 It’s not skepticism to the point of being dense, it’s acknowledging the gaps in one’s knowledge, something nearly everyone in this cesspool of a comment section can’t seem to do. When we’re confronted with mysteries, we should never fill in the blanks however we see fit and regard it as fact.
@@ericanderson7346 Pinker has been to Epstein's island. Theres no gap in his knowledge or lack thereof, hes an active participant in the cabal of evil.
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."
Carl Sagan
None of us are immune to this. Remain skeptical. Ask questions that require evidence, not opinion. Encourage debate between opposing views. We need more Carl Sagan's in the world.
Soviet propaganda studies. You just described them and whats going on in todays US media.
This is exactly how extreme covert narcissists recruit "flying monkeys". For certain people, all you have to do is compromise their ego and you've got them. They were successfully fooled and by the time they figure that out, they can't bear to admit it, even (especially) to themselves.
Didn't Carl Sagan himself cause harm to the field of rationality by attaching narratives to science?
@@SirBlackReeds how so?
@@DaGARCE1 what I was just going to describe. There's an interview with an ex kgb agent video from the eighties that describe it.
“Thats crazy, jamie pull up that picture of pinker posing with Jeffery Epstein.”
ruclips.net/video/z98p7vHE4Oo/видео.html The media don't want you to see this
ruclips.net/video/b5lLFAlz4fc/видео.html
We've given up on being rational, now we just rationalize our feelings.
That's what we've always done and always will do. It's just more transparent due to information sharing and social media.
But is that not exactly what JRE is? There is nothing rational about this show. Its Joe protecting his feelings and beliefs in spite of facts and evidence. Most of his guests do the same and his audience treats his podcasts like they are the encyclopedia of truth. This show is a prime example of rationalizing feelings instead of facing certain truths that people simply don't like.
@@williamschlass4598 Then it feeds back onto itself. "its acceptable in society according to my phone, so ill join in."
Boomer comment
ruclips.net/video/rM4bt7L230Q/видео.html what the media don't want you to see ..just unbelievable6
I like how he said “the less educated
More rural areas.” How much can I trust him now? There are doctors,
Lawyers, engineers, etc living in rural areas
Do you know about the median and the mean concepts?
Bringing up Epstein seemed to have really struck a nerve in him.
because hes part of it, his name is on the list
@@jimmythecrow Exactly. Keep an eye on Chomsky too. Who pushes for what is important in times like this...
@@xTheReapersSpawn Really? Noam Chomsky? Please don't ...
@@Hvislysettarosss Chomsky is and always was controlled opposition.
I wonder why? Hmm has he been to the island? Is he connected to Harvard ? Did Epstein give millions of dollars to Harvard? These are rational questions, what's the rational conclusion?
So basically, by the end, Pinker’s rationality has led him to the conclusion that the official narrative on absolutely everything is what intelligent people (who only live in cities) should believe. 👍👍
ruclips.net/video/b5lLFAlz4fc/видео.html
Yep, he's a shill.
This comes from a 15min clip or you listened to the whole interview and came to this conclusion?
That was your conclusion because you are a selfish American. He means actually rural people not your fake lifestyle.
finito. bravo. you completed Pinkers Palace. Now move on to Schaub's Shack! try and find the hidden chauvinism in the invisible man bun boutique before time runs out!
When you believe your morally or ethically right. It’s easy to point out other peoples hypocrisy. It’s difficult for people to realize their own.
Maybe my moral claims, with my hypocrisy included, exist in tension with every other human’s moral claim and hypocrisy. This is the only objective reality. Hypocrisy is the air and a moral claim is the fuel for the combustion engine of existence.
Lmao Pinker had been to epstein island, he’s a monster
also it's quite difficult to parse the diff between your, you,re, there, they're, their, could have/could of etc etc .. when you only have half brain, one does find..tragically..
I can rationally assume that Steven Pinker was very well involved with Jeffery Epstein.
Should've asked him about his friend Ghislaine Maxwell's ongoing trial this week.
He wishes her well
How come the creator of the MRNA vaccine has been deplatformed and completely censored? I appreciate Rogan but he continually contradicts himself, but he is unfortunately one of the only people we have to speak for us.
Rogan inviting people with different opinions than his isnt no where close to contradictory
Spotify man... There is no way they didn't sneak in a clause or two to keep him under wraps. Exactly why they offered him 100 mln. Do you really think spotify will make that money back? No chance imho.
I love Rogan, but how based he is and how biased he is seems to shift depending on what guest he’s talking to.
@@SS369 The stock is up 61% since they signed Rogan that is 26b, he isn't the sole reason, but they made that money back quite easily.
@@bulleyes9059 they did but NOT because of rogan.... Ridiculous to compare stock to that. Why don't you compare revenue metrics?
Didn’t hear him say one example how the left was irrational.
That would be career suicide.
Exactly
What’s an analogous example of irrationality from the mainstream left that’s comparable in numbers to the QAnon faction of the right?
Because he’s an employee at Harvard, the Mecca of toxic wokeness. That would be like a Catholic priest denouncing the New Testament.
He explains why he doesn’t at around 7:35
The gentleman lost me when he said "intelligent people move to the cities and unintelligent people move to rural areas." I don't believe that is so.
Dare's less conkrete and mettle in the country for me to hit my hed on. Dat's gud.
What you believe is irrelevant, it's either true or isn't. The data shows you are incorrect.
It's interesting to see Stephen Pinker's projection. He's calling out everyone who he disagrees with saying you can't change their minds with evidence. He's saying that everything he believes is correct. He already knows you're wrong and he's right.
Are you listening at all? He is asking to challenge your own belief system.
My question to you ... Have you ever tried? Truly tried? I did and I changed my mind when it comes to religion completely.
@@basengelblik5199 I did listen. He used the 'right wing' as an example for every single point he made while not once incriminating anybody else, or himself.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 Well, has it ever occurred to you that maybe he is correct? Perhaps leave your biases at the door and listen to guy. Truly listen, without knee jerk responses that are really just manifestations of your ego. Then, after really embodying his viewpoint for a while, formulate your response honestly. If you still think he’s full of shit so be it but a little empathy goes a long way. If you expect people to be charitable to you be charitable to them too. This obviously applies to Pinker as well, who could always do a better job, as we all could.
Calling out people who believe in PizzaGate literally during the same week of the trial of ghislaine maxwell is a bold move. PizzaGate may in and of itself a little crazy but still... Bold. Move.
Facts. He’s blind.
This guy exudes the exact characteristics he describes in his book; being irrationally & personally attached to his ideas, ignoring simple & plain empirical data and defending those ideas in the face of overwhelming substantive evidence. Simply put, he refuses to admit when he is wrong and watching him dance around and argue semantics reminds me of an intelligent 8 year old trying to prove how smart he is. I listened to the full podcast on Spotify and he is Incredibly frustrating to listen to.
Pinker seems totally unaware of how much of a hypocrite he comes across as in just a few short minutes. The man is clearly suffering from the illusion that he is a free-thinker with valuable ideas.
What ideas did he defend here?..
And the straw-man attacks... Oh deer gawd the straw-man attacks!
"We at the top of society have never been more rational" what a joke.
@@droyal18able That's not what he said nor what he implied. Listen to it again.
I can almost guarantee you can show this guy data on multiple subjects that oppose his beliefs and he will have just as much cognitive dissonance as every group he is accusing of denying facts
Sure pal...
why are you talking about yourself in the 3rd person
He literally dismisses others who are informed, then claiming it's "they have religion". Tiring.
Yup. Nobody, more than myself, wants to believe in the faxine's. I know 5 people with immediate and indicative, life impacting (including death) impacts.
In canada, health care is "free". But my spouse was on a 2 year wait list, to have a painful joint operation. Yet I saw friends/family and "special's" get in for same or less immediately.
And also in canada, some of the most environmentally, ethically, employee safe and morally conscious resource extraction is shelved for enviro "issues", but Saudi , the Africa's, India, Chyna can blight the earth to import back into Canada, the same or even worse, quality of resources.
When you realize the dissonance, you can never unsee the agenda.
You realize you are collateral damage in their game. And they don't care.
@@johnqpublic407 dude I like you haha. You’ve clearly done some research and although I wouldn’t say you or I are 100% correct I’ve came to the same conclusions on vaccines and the environment.
Pinker has his own biases, and uncompromising opinions which he claims are facts.
"You get educated hipsters and knowledge workers in cities and you have less educated in suburbs and rural areas" LOL. That one quote says a lot
Coastal elitism is a powerful force. Dogmatic belief that they're 100% right about everything while their cities and forests burn around them. Meanwhile their hated inland enemies peacefully enjoy their holidays and lives, blissfully unaware of the havoc planned for them by their "betters"
"Smart" people live in cities? Apparently these smart people keep voting the same garbage over and over to have high crime rates, poverty, property taxes through the roof etc. Just ask the people of Detroit, Philadelphia, Memphis, San Francisco, St. Louis, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Cleveland how their leaders have taken care of them over the last 40-60 years all by Democrats and all in debt. Us dummies live where it's quite, no tent city crap, we not burning everything down because we don't get our way, and most importantly... We keep to ourselves and respect the people around us.
“Educated” is just another term for “Indoctrinated”. Easily imprinted on.
But it's a fact. You getting offended doesn't mean it's not fact.
"Almost 90 percent of college grads live in urban counties, with more than 60 percent of them in large metros with over one million people. Just a bit more than one in ten college graduates reside in rural communities." - Source: Bloomberg " The Talent Dividend in Urban and Rural Areas"
What you seem to be confusing is that people born in rural areas aren't necessarily dumber. It simply means as people attain degrees and become more highly educated, they move to cities as that's where they can get jobs and earn the most.
This is exactly what he means when he says people are less rational. When you get offended or defensive about data you don't like, you ignore the clear reality - that is, you don't apply rational thought. Get out of your feelings Mike, Shane and Ben.
@@AZ2PM Where else could they find a job with those useless Liberal Arts and Gender Studies degrees?
I like that he equates cities with education and suburbs and rural area with uneducated people who just haven’t been reached yet. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
How’s he wrong? People in the city have more resources
@@Rai3 resources don’t make you more educated. There are plenty of good high schools and colleges in rural areas lmao. Remember when the United States spent $3 billion developing a ball point pen that could write in space, and Russia used a pencil? Resources don’t mean you’re intelligent.
@@jackmariner resources not as in school but access to information and speed of information. Like which area do you think gets more data? Also, poverty rates are higher in rural areas than urban areas.
@@Rai3 really? so farms with millions of dollars of heavy equipment are poorer than cities which contain slums, i'd like to see your evidence, cities attract poor people and the homeless, how many homeless encampments do you encounter in the country? your evidence most likely comes from the census, inner city poor people are more likely to ignore the census and the census does not count the homeless.
@@King_Flippy_Nips Lol you act like people in the rural areas invented this farming equipment and aren’t being operated by farming corporations.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, in 2019 15.4% of people living in rural areas had an income below the federal poverty line, while those living in urban areas had a poverty rate of 11.9%.
You ever driven through rural towns facing blight, or looked at the health outcomes of rural towns?
a very rational question for anyone out there: why was Mr. Pinker on a certain notorious sex traffickers plane?
Yes, that’s a very rational question.
@joe rogan why didn’t you ask Steve?
>these people believe that pedos run the government
This isn’t far fetched anymore
@@aronean 🥴
he has needs
There’s this misconception of being educated these days. A person with a PH.D nowadays, is equivalent to a person with an Associate Degree back in the 90s.
Pinker blocked me on twitter when I sent him the Epstein picture lol
you shouldn't have sent him that picture
@@SpaceExplorer I bet it was a nice photo though
Was he with Epstein?
I posted Stephen Colbert's Epstein tape all over his Facebook and for his show. My entire account is now permanently deleted...
@My shoulder Muscles is this pinkers finsta?
@My shoulder Muscles mmmmmmm
Most "right wing" people I know don't dismiss climate change as being real. They dismiss the idea that it may not be something we can control, may not be something we can resolve, may not be something we SHOULD resolve at the current cost, and most certainly is a way to siphon money out of the economy, into the hands of a select few. Even more concerning than the loss of "rationality", is the loss of "subtlety" in conversations. Someone once likened that lack of subtlety to tyranny, in fact.
Dude sniffs his own farts while he justifies his fear of exploring genuinely dangerous ideas in the name of "being rational," when in fact he's just being cucked by the cage of haughty, bourgeois expectations of his peers.
For years they were arguing that it wasn’t even happening. Then they had to admit that yes it was happening, but they wouldn’t admit that humans were causing it. Now they admit that humans are causing it, but argue that we shouldn’t do anything about it. Good to see that they are slowly coming along to accepting it, but would be really nice to start hearing some solutions on the right to count the liberal proposals.
@@TonyTrupp This way of thinking is so insanely flawed. If you can't make a point without the inverse being as (or more) damaging to your stance, you'd be well-advised to not say it. For instance, we are now approaching our 40th year of the ice caps existing past the point where we were told they would be gone. I'm still waiting for the complete decimation of the "ozone layer", which will bring about mass death due to heat and ultraviolet exposures, and it's been over 30 years. I haven't seen a single instance of "acid rain", which was put forth as something that was coming within a "few years", over 30 years ago.
The point is, in case your piddly brain can't follow it, that you can't take the extreme stance of a few people, and attribute it to everyone who differs with your stance in some way. You can't even take the extreme stance of a bunch of people and attribute it all to everyone who shares some opinions with them. Rationality, reasonability, and most importantly ... SUBTELTY AND UNDERSTANDING, allow people to avoid these types of traps. I'd recommend you pull your head out of your ass long enough to ponder the reality that you might not actually know everything on this subject.
When I was in college in the 80s, the thing then was that we were moving into a NEW ICE AGE! Climate changes, and how much humans impact that really hasn’t been determined. It’s all political and all about $$$.
My whole thing with climate change is how many of the catastrophists are vehemently against nuclear energy. Like if the world is going to end why not use nuclear? That’s why I don’t mind Pinker’s perspective on climate change so much, because he has a realistic solution. The rest of the podcast Pinker looks like a fool though.
"It's both sides"
"It's both sides"
Proceeds to only berate one side.
Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Do you not believe in climate change
@@MahkyVmedia1 this playlist changed my mind. Maybe start with the last 4 if you're short on time: ruclips.net/p/PLHSoxioQtwZcqdt3LK6d66tMreI4gqIC-
@@StrangeSoap have you watched potholer?
@@MahkyVmedia1 no I don't believe in climate change, because if it's science I wouldn't have to believe it
Can you explain what is hypocritical about caring for peoples health?
Every once in while, JR has a guest on who is not a lunatic. This is that guest. And of course JR agrees with every single point he makes as JR is wont to do.
Pinker makes claims that are categorically false and then accuses anyone who doesn't agree with his false statements of being "irrational". That's what now passes for intellectual thought. 🙄
Which claims?
That's left thinking
Just getting ready to post the same. Rational thought to this guy is agreeing with him. If you don't, you're irrational.
Yep. Given Epstein, the pedo link between the rich and powerful is there. And anyone who actually bothered to check the Wikileaks emails can see Pizagate is a "thing".
ruclips.net/video/rM4bt7L230Q/видео.html what the media don't want you to see ..just unbelievable6
This guy's biases are evident right off the bat. He steers away from Joe's comments about academia and immediately goes to a right wing group that he can call out. I think he might be guilty of the exact type of bubbling he's calling out.
What do you expect from someone who hangs out with Epstein after convictions?
Clearly
i really dont like this guy
Joe just wants everybody to say the same shit about people being pissed at him.
Pinker is through and through Academia. You could split him in half and the mainstream narrative would spill out.
This guy is not promoting rationality, he is promoting technocracy and totalitarism based on "data"
Which is what academics always do and how they even justify their power in the first place. Obviously an academic wants "data" and "competence" to rule the world, because he has a paper on his wall that conveniently says that he's one of the few people who are competent and have all the data.
Ugh this Technocratic agenda is getting annoying. Keep your eugenics away from me.
Straight facts, also his books are shit, right brained BS.
just to check, whats the definition of "technocracy"?
Lol no
The opening of this conversation is funny. One gy claiming that rationality is gone, and in the same breath, painting about 50% of the population with a broad brush. "They aren't on my side, therefore they aren't rational."
Lol.
Anyway, one thing I like about more right-leaning people is that they're willing to debate, which is *the core* of scientific inquiry. So when a scientist or self-proclaimed rational person eschews debate, that's when I know that they aren't as rational as they think they are.
I have to say that I was not very impressed with Pinker in this interview, beyond just this clip. They were talking about conspiracy theories; how they happen, who's susceptible, the likelihood (or unlikely) of them being true, etc. He seemed to be working VERY hard to stay within the lines of what/how someone "should" think about them.
They got into "Q-anon," and why people would invest so deeply in something that any rational person not taken in by would at it as obviously absurd. Rogan said "one of the problems today with the conspiracy theories floating around is that a number of them turned out to be true." Pinker was at a loss at to what he could be talking about, and Rogan pointed out about Twitter not allowing anything about Hunter Biden to be posted, wouldn't allow the NY Post article to be linked to, the numerous stories by news outlets that proved to be little more than propaganda for a certain political side etc.
Pinker just kept saying "well I'm talking about these large, vast conspiracies like 9/11 being an inside job. Chem trails, etc." He seems to have a VERY narrow view on what he'll consider to be a "conspiracy theory."
Rogan pointed out correctly that "yeah okay, but these are conspiracies being spread by numerous outlets where they either know they aren't true, or aren't really interested in finding out if they're actually true." Rogan's point was "these are small ones compared to the JFK assassination, 9/11 truthers, etc. But these smaller ones naturally start to make the possibility that the larger ones being true seem more plausible to people." It was falling on dead ears and he just kept going back to the 9/11, JFK, etc.
It was like he just refused to even consider that anything beyond orthodoxy, it actually got to the point I was almost embarrassed for him. It was as if his family was being held my a gunman whispering in his ear "you better toe the line or they're dead." It got to the point of absurdity.
I've read things from Pinker over the years and listened to him on freakonomics and while I wasn't a "fan" (I didn't follow him that close), I at least respected him. I don't know if I do after just being halfway through the episode.
When Rogan pointed out how US Academia was quite hostile to hosting debate from people with contrasting (not even opposing) views. Pinker started talking about Q-Anon. So you are probably right that he is talking up his 'book' as it were. And perhaps not straightforward as we would like.
I'd love to hear Pinkert explain building 7. Explain Silverstein saying they decided to "pull" the building, admitting it was brought down by demolition. If that's the case, it OBVIOSLY must have been wired with explosives prior to 9/11 --- it typically takes days to do that. I've never been told who came in and wired the building in one hour. Why doesn't the person who wired it that day in record time come forward? Who did Silverstein call that afternoon who came in and did the impossible? Why isn't there video of the explosives vehicles and personnel wiring the building? So-called conspiracy theories are also known as valid unanswered, unexplained, questions.
@@fukgoogole2 no, not at all as straight. Not even as straight as I'd like, he wasn't as straight as I expected.
Yes, to me he was very blatant in his defense of the narrative. He is right about how authority in science should be regarded. As in, there should be no authority in science. Just verifiable tests and data.
Also, I was blown away at his dismissal of the paedo claims of Q. Is he not aware how many Paedos have been protected and work for the CIA?
The Elephant in the room is called Emotional Immaturity, the root cause and another discussion that needs to be had.
Just look at the literal clown show of guests on CNN or MSNBC to know emotional maturity is GONE. Im not joking, they look like literal CLOWNS!
Very true. Most Human beings have difficulty being objective. You realise that most people are willfully irrational because the truth does not align with what they want to be true.
Muh Emotional Immaturity. Imagine adopting female shame tactics because you don't have actual arguments.
Lack of personality recognition is also a big problem that falls in line with this
There's three issues IMO:
Pride: when you can't look inward and reconsider your own convictions and identity, then you *must* presuppose the outsider is guilty. This leads to things like mind reading (racism, X-ism), or just willfull ignorance (doubling down). It's tribalism.
Nominalism: the belief that all of our categories are purely social constructs and that the meaning of words, our ethics, etc, are constantly in flux. This means that words to them are simply a means to an end: power. They change definitions when they don't like connotations, or euphemize narratives simply to appeal to pathos like Mark Ruffalo using the Rittenhouse's assailants nickname, and refusing to use the P word because of the negative connotation. Ask the Nominalist if they believe in any universal categories, or ask them to define anything and they won't do it. They killed Socrates because he kept asking people to define words.
Fear: lots of black pills going around because the sources of knowledge (media outlets) people thought were trustworthy were in fact not, and losing your source of knowledge creates a lost feeling and lots of anxiety. People would rather act like it's not happening.
As soon as he said you get less educated people moving to rural areas he discredited himself, this is a proven fallacy.
I'd say less indoctrinated in rural areas. So much of education is simply believing what teachers say.
@@AlyseNicoleO well said.
Yeah this guy is delusional, people who live in the rural areas are smarter than city folk by a mile
Are you saying people in rural areas have more useless advanced degrees than people in urban areas with hundreds of thousands of dollars of student debt? I thought you said rural people were smarter
@@hingle_mccringleberry if you think a degree and debt are the only measures of intelligence . . . You might be urban 🤔
He’s right about the “my side thinking”. He is a prime example of it.
A hypothetical. People I don’t like, who have lied to me for decades, come up with a new “scary” thing that sounds an awful lot like the lies they’ve told me before. Furthermore, most of their predictions have failed to come true. And now I’m supposed to accept it because THEY claim it’s based on science.
@ndjfksnwvehsbdjckvkkfss then why are you here?
Zip it, NPC
As a curiosity, could you list some of the "scary" things we have been warned about by "them" while also saying who "they" are and then give documented proof of things we were lied to about? I kind of am done with baseless claims like yours because you didn't say anything at all. Give me details not just "they lied" because which they and what lie? These things matter when you are trying to make a point. And don't just say "the government" specify who in the government and what they lied about.
Climate change isnt denied by the "right wing" Caused by humans and can be stopped by intervention of humans is ridiculous in its huberous...yeah climate change is obvious, inevitable, and humans cannot stop what is happening to the entirety of our solar system. Humans arent responsible for the warming of the whole solar system are we????
@ndjfksnwvehsbdjckvkkfss You are paid troll and we are onto you. JRE is a threat to the information establishment. And you are here solely to sow division.
I love when people immediately throw "conspiracy theories" out the window, like they alone know exactly how life works.
9/11
@@cdbz20 what about it?
I love when conspiracy theorists immediately call everyone else blind sheep, like they alone know exactly how life works.
There’s some crazy conspiracies going around that Pinker was tight with a certain Jeffrey Epstein...what a bunch of crazies 😜
@@Peterdeskater100 i could name a coyple off the top of my head, like the origin of the vaarus and the vaccine passports. Only a year ago these were considered crazy conspiracy theories.
This Pinker character is an invaluable mouthpiece of the establishment.
Exactly, if it were a hundred years ago he would be saying that eugenicists are rational and people who doubt it are idiots. CO2 driven anthropogenic climate change is a theory, not a fact.
@@gdub8568 This, there is a natural cycle, however they like to whine we DO NOT have the data to even slightly suggest we are having an impact with our emissions.
"Alexa, what religion does Stephen Pinker belong to?"
@@hackdotx4060 it's almost like he was chosen for this role
The establishment hate him. Especially the far left.
I love Joe Rogan but I must say that Stephen Pinker's classification of 9/11 Truthers among the groups that are irrational and illogical is misplaced and actually contradicts rationality and logic based upon real evidence. The collapse of Building 7 is one of the best examples of cognitive dissonance. Pinker appears to have fallen into the very group-think trap that he argues against. Some conspiracies are real and belief in their existence is based on a logical review of the facts. Joe should have called out Pinker on that distinction.
Right out of the gate and he's shilling for the official narratives
I noticed that. Its so disappointing.
I mean he's part of the larger Epstein sphere, not surprising.
100%. That's why he's backing up old bill Gates whose father was a philanthropist he's just carrying on the family business to get rid of certain DNA off this planet
Beta males have taken over America the number one reason we're about the collapse sorry to say you can't have women in beta males running society it makes for a week society simple as it gets
Man I'm definitely with you!
He is the very person he is trying to describe--in some ways. Amazing
ruclips.net/video/b5lLFAlz4fc/видео.html
He was on Epsteins plane ffs
Exactly what I was was thinking. He seems so caught up in his own superiority that he can’t even admit he’s part of the very problem he describes.
@@danc8900 no he wasn’t . Wtf you on about. You know who was, according to jizzlaine? Donald fooking J trump
@@danc8900 To be fair, I imagine Epstein had many people he used to give himself authenticity without them being involved in his sicko activity. Just a thought. 🤓
The guy who wrote a book about rational thinking just said that “scientists and experts aren’t willing enough to show their work”, while simultaneously any dissenting viewpoint, study, or evidence is censored or discredited. Joe, you seem more likely to play hardball when your own reputation is on the line (Gupta), but this guy gets zero pushback. Disappointing.
ruclips.net/video/b5lLFAlz4fc/видео.html
Joe was a flop in this interview, very sad.
You're spot on! Zero pushback.
Your right. Rogan played very nicely with Pinker, but he was all over Gupta.
Joe simps for people like this
Being skeptical of the climate change hysteria is considered irrational?? I didn't expect this here.
It’s not denial of climate change. It’s denial that the extent in which weather doomsayers have been predicting and wrong. And they are against the thought that a bunch of stupid politicians who can’t balance a budget should be given more money to “fix” the problem.
Climate and weather are two very different things. Also It's a bit of a myth that climate scientists have been getting all their predictions wrong. Occasionally the media will pick up on a prediction from 40 years ago that was particularly off. But most forecasts have actually been quite accurate. If anything, scientists have been alarmed by how much more quickly the planet has heated that they previously thought it would.
They don’t need more money just stop subsiding fossil fuels and you would have billons. But we know the lobbyists won’t let that happen.
There problem is conservatives are using media liberals blunders to debate real science by real scientists. It’s like the ‘global cooling’ fiasco that conservatives bring up to dismiss climate change, when in fact that was a media creation, not scientists.
@Matt the company’s can fund themselves and the money the government gives them can go towards renewables, research and innovation etc. did I say anywhere to shutdown and stop using fossil fuels immediately?
@Matt your clear don’t know what a subsidy is and what im talking about.
I was dating a woman that was a liberal in the puritanical sense.being someone that’s open to persuasion has given me perspectives on both political spectrums.she became hysterical when I tried to show her evidence she was wrong.obviously things didn’t work out
I know I'm being anecdotal but a Liberal was irrational? Weird.
I am with a now christian ex gay dominican woman whos pretty far left and is also a teacher. We dated prior to all that decent into madness, the lady even had a MURAL of biden in her house 🤣, she knew exactly my stance on all that, being a traditional catholic. In less than a year all those belifes exploded and she was stuck with some free loading woman living in her house. Shes a rare case of her experiencing ALL that far left stuff and having it all explode on her, and she came to reality all on her own. Its good she experienced it first hand though rather than just me staying on her about it. Everythings pretty good now, shes very rational these days
@@jonathansoko1085 ex-gay?
I thought that was a born thing hahahah
ruclips.net/video/z98p7vHE4Oo/видео.html The media don't want you to see thiso
ruclips.net/video/z98p7vHE4Oo/видео.html The media don't want you to see thisk
This guy is the literal embodiment of the fallacy of authority.
I couldn't really listen after he asserted mRNA vaccines were evidence of rationality. They are evidence of little more than a corrupt news media, corrupt medical establishment and the desire of the government to eliminate both freedom and rationality.
@@TheGuitarMonk The ultimate irony is that your childhood immunization schedule likely saved your life and enabled you to comment nonsense on RUclips.
@@erwind1257 can you see the irony?
@@erwind1257 you’re comparing legacy vaccines to these novel ones? Please don’t. Usual vaccine clinical trials last 8 years. These are novel tech and only had 5 months. Dig into the tech too.
@@Marc-io8qm Why can't you compare? You just did. Some are older and have more data. There is clearly less certainly in the newer ones.
Interesting that he considers education separate from indoctrination when these days there is very little room for questioning the narrative in higher education which would imply it is closer to indoctrination.
I'm curious Colleen to know what classes you're currently taking
These academia types who spend their entire lives on a college campus getting paid to study theories are pretty detached from reality
@@nicholascarter9158 You may be curious, or you may instead share what you feel. I'm always open to dialogue.
Only time will tell if mRNA vaccines and the way they are being coerced is rational. And the climate is always changing, we have trees under the ice in northern Canada. Paying more taxes to the government will not change a thing, it's just another tax. I'm more concerned about pollution and consumerism, that is a problem in every single community on earth.
I think mRNA would have been widely accepted if it wasn’t for covid. It’s a shame because it’s a potentially revolutionary technology that will always have stain on its rep
The earth is getting warmer at an alarming rate because of humans.
@@HL-iw1du it's a cycle
Refreshing comment
@@DadsCigaretteRun depends on who you ask.. Most people are pretty happy with the fact that there is a vaccine.
The problem is, in order to be rational you need to *always* leave open the possibility that you could be wrong in your beliefs and assumptions, as the most irrational people are the ones absolutely sure they are right, and this guy does not seem like he's open to being wrong. (And just because someone makes a better argument doesn't necessarily mean they are correct.) I personally believe we are having an impact on the climate, but I certainly could be wrong. While the most outlandish conspiracies are probably unlikely to be true, that doesn't mean they are impossible, so just because I don't believe them likely doesn't mean I can 100% say they are BS, because there sure is a lot of stuff I don't know, and don't even know I don't know!
Exactly, also he made the some sort of comment when he referred to the pope and convincing him that Jesus isn’t the son of god. I could be wrong but it seemed to me as if he was saying it as you were saying, he couldn’t be wrong. Just came off as arrogant in my opinion. I know there are many rational arguments against religion but in the end we all know a small amount compared to the universe
I’d like to think most people believe in ideas from both sides of politics but the media constantly stokes to push the two sides apart and create division. I hate to identify myself as one or the other because it generates an idea of what I believe to someone that is false, I would now just say ask me what my stance is on something and I’ll give my opinion.
the only way to know is with communication. i suspect that the real essence of "climate denial" is people trying to avoid the possibility of government intervention. Scepticism, even if its deeply rooted to disbelieving everything, is very important. Calling it irrationality is a propaganda game.
if you think steven pinker wouldnt alter his position on climate change, or any stance with data, or evidence, you are highly mistaken
like new data about which belief to support would serve his interests best?
This podcast inflates the issue more.
The fact that the very first argument is based on the left and right spectrum, is the worst way to address it. Continuing the divide of people, as if someone cannot just think for themselves and have their own interpretation their just labelled left or right or far right is immediately the go to measurement. Move away from this political warfare and come together to discuss each other's beliefs and find ways to fix it from there instead of immediately labelling people.
Do it then
Yeah, was disappointed when Joe made it a left/right thing. He definitely had a bee in his bonnet on this one. He was probably on a comedown from lack of weed.
@@hendrixisgod777 He was led by the nose by this guy's straw-man attacks. Very cringe, he's usually not so pliable.
@/フリークS_ why are you talking about trump?
Exactly. And what these two say without saying it correctly, it’s their side (climate change leftist) who censor and block rational debate. So they label the right in a political frame (not good), then go full political on them to shut them down in reality
Pinker and Joe seem to be arguing with conservative straw men from 25 years ago. I'm very conservative and run mostly in conservative circles and I don't know many people (nor am I one) who disbelieve climate change exists or that human beings contribute to it. The general consensus on the right today is moreso that climate alarmism is an exaggeration of the facts (e.g. always taking the annual IPCC's worst case scenario as the consensus reality) and a disagreement on solutions.
Okay… my complaint is he’s describing “intelligence” when he’s talking about “rational” at the start.
Rational is more like the ability to take an argument apart and analyze it for truths and assumptions. It took intelligence and skill to develop technology… not rationalism exactly
No, it took rationalism.
Imgine saying Pinker is using a word wrong. He’s an expert on words
@@largemargeog1023 He's an expert in narrow-mindedness, arrogance and bias.
You don't mean "rationalism." You mean _reason._ Rationalism is a theory of philosophy that describes reason as the basis of all certainty. Rationalism didn't create reason - it was in a sense derived from reason. Reason had to exist before rationalism is.
@@largemargeog1023
He seems like an expert on bs to me.
Got you fooled.
I think its completely rational to be heavily skeptical of any government officials. Money doesn't just buy politicians... Doctors and Scientists are not immune to vast sums of money and or death threats.
Strange then big oil isn't buying off all these "for sale" scientists
@@DSPHistoricalSociety exactly, and the thing with science is you can re-test results to see if you can reach the same conclusion. Math and science is hard to bend the truth with, when you can test it to see if it's true. And Science isn't just one guy in a lab saying "listen to what I say, it is gospel". It is a collective consensus across the cohort.
@@maxfairclough3600 reel tawk brother! Too many ppl starting with a conclusion and working backwards out here
@@maxfairclough3600 it is not a collective census, many scientists disagree. Plus the costs to do these science trials is very high and the funding often comes from companies who have a vested interest in a desired outcome. For some random scientist at a small university to try to challenge the results of a study funded with tens of millions of dollars from PepsiCo or nestle or glaxosmithkline is out of the realm of possibility. People forget that science is done by people, who are very easily swayed by money or biases or preconceived notions and often overlook many factors and we often forget that science is more of a compass than a map in most cases.
I listened on Spotify and then came here specifically for the comments for the sole purpose of making sure it wasn’t just me who felt like this dude believed he was the smartest man alive.
Kind of like all the commenters here. What a coincidence!
@@matthewbeat first time I have ever read comments on a Joe Rogan video and it’s just everyone acting as the smartest person to ever touch a keyboard blasting someone who doesn’t agree with the lololol
@John Ward
I did the exact same thing. He talked about how you can't get anyone to change their mind, but I doubt anyone could change his mind on any of his beliefs.
I love this comment. Not just because it articulates exactly the thought process that brought me here, but also because it just gave me such an awesome laugh. Out loud. LOL.
right to climate change to call people deniers, yet we can all see it changing but how much responsibility is on humanity and to what degree should we care, back to the previous guest he stated the temps were 12 degrees warmer and Joe was trying to call him a punk because of truth... facepalm
There's no better podcast than JRE, i find people of every kind for all topics i'm interested in. it's mostly rational and objective also very diverse.
Lately it's been really difficult to find anyone anymore who doesn't have this delicate defensive "I can't be wrong" aura around them at all times. People aren't open to anything they aren't comfortable with and no one ever approaches problems with the presumption that the answer could be something neutral instead of "this" or "that." You know you're on the right track when you agree and disagree with plenty of beliefs from both the left and the right. That means you have at least a bit of that good ol' integrity left.
I agree wholeheartedly. In early 2020, when the pandemic hit... I 'lost' something like 50-100 online friends (and some family). My gf--well, now EX--and her family also cajoled, ignored and ghosted me as well.
All because I was expressing concerns that things were 'showing signs of 1918' (not to mention, I became sick with an EARLY VERSION of C-19--no joke). *rolls eyes* Everyone told me that I was a moron, hypochondriac, and that things would blow over in a few weeks (mostly because 'Trump said so'). *ROLLS EYES*
Obviously, they were super correct, and I was dead wrong (speaking of 'dead', some people I know died from C19). The pandemic 'ended' in mid-2020, lol. Nothing I predicted came true (rolls eyes again). Science is also bogus, lol.
Sadly it's because lying and being bad faithed has become normalized to the point that people feel they can't afford to be too open. Especially with a perceived ideological opponent
I prefer telling people my flaws out right, distinguishes me from those who can't be wrong.
I think most people agree and disagree with both sides about things, it’s just that those are normal people and you never really hear from normal people on the internet. I also think that when it comes to serious topics most people just (unfortunately) resort to making jokes about people who hold views they disagree with, then all their comments get likes further reinforcing that attitude.
Some things I might agree with the left on: animal rights, wildlife preservation, habitat protection, expanding parkland, destroying the power of oligarchs.
Wasn’t Pinker pictured with Epstein and company?
I think we used to know this before everything got too overwhelming and confusing: the Internet has allowed people who know nothing to share their _opinion_ as fact to potentially millions of people. This has made people always need to have an answer as opposed to admitting that they really know nothing about a subject.
I just did it myself.
Yep, expertise used to matter but social media has diluted it. It's become about demagoguery, which is very worrying as that's what brought down the Athenians and collapsed their democracy. And we saw that on Jan 6th how far that can go..
Rogan and this guest just did it, too.
@@quietquitter6103 I don't think you could say Steven Pinker just spoke out of turn. He's an expert on the subject to some degree. He _is_ a cognitive psychologist and linguistic expert.
@@L.C.Sweeney Talking about Rogan.
@@quietquitter6103 haha fair enough. I always think it's good that Rogan at least makes an attempt to not chat shit and he quite rarely says something completely stupid.
Pinker's like a recreational thinker, picking and entertaining here and there, not really taking on real issues.
He's a typical groupthink liberal drone. When he said he believed the Epstein story I almost spit my coffee out. This Pinker guy cannot be taken seriously.
@@guyfawkes8384 No he can't. I was a fan of Edward Wilson, who died very recently at an old age, and who'd taught at Harvard too. And I's seen Pinker appear with Wilson, debate him, etc. So I thought he had Wilson's support, or was credible in some way (Wilson was known as a great mind of the 20th century). But clearly, Pinker is just on Rogan representing Harvard money, lobbying. Which is a shame. No, he can no longer be taken seriously (even if we see Rogan showing him lots of deference).
I don't usually post but i am tired of hearing how rural America is uneducated, I live in rural America and my entire household have 1 to 2 degrees, and EVERY neighbor within a mile has at least one to two members in the household that have college degrees. Rural America is not uneducated
Funny how these "educated people" really know nothing about the country in which they live in. They might know something about the city they live in, but they have no idea about he country...
"educated" today just means "trained to obey authority". It is not the virtue they pretend it is.
This guy is so blue pilled. He needs to update his software. He believes in democracy and all that other religious stuff
The only alternative to democracy is dictatorship
@@brentharrington8134 where ever there's anarchy, might makes right and the strong take over to rule over everyone else. Example violent gangs claiming the land their turf and demanding a fee from everyone to live on it. No thanks
It's great that he called out right wing garbage, but he wasn't "rational" enough to call out the garbage on the left wing side. Completely destroys his credibility in my opinion.
"We should not give up on people's ability to take evidence seriously." Fantastic.
Well you can see where this podcast is going almost immediately!
You’re too political
It's funny how all the guys that were on those Epstein flight logs or known to have gone to his Island always talk s*** about conspiracy theories.. lol. Cuk
LOL 💯😂😂😂
What do you mean?
Yup
I think Pinker should remember to apply that to himself and his peers as well. Doesn't sound like he feels he and those of similar opinions are subject to the same logic issues.
Legend. Was thinking the same lol
^^
Steve and his Thuckberg crew are automatically right, apparently, just cuz they will deign to explain nicely to those deplorable blue collar types just how c o r r e c t they are and w h y .
Dealing with actual evidence will do that to a man.
It's good to see someone who is right about everything.Hopefully he can get people who are wrong about everything to realize how wrong they are.It's a very noble cause to get those who disagree with you to stop being deniers.
lol
Bro exactly my thoughts. Thus dude reeks of thinking he's the smartest guy in every space
He kind of redeemed himself a lil bit at the end of this clip though.
I am curious to hear his thoughts on the covid scamdemic . Would love to hear him try to protect the establishment & their AUTHORITARIAN BS we can smell from miles away.
48 Laws of Power | Robert Greene | The Cult | ruclips.net/video/a2PoKFuNX_0/видео.html ?vd ssd43asdfsa
LOL
His constant reference to the “right wing” irrationalities shows his obvious bias.
You can believe in humans affecting the atmosphere to a certain extent while also believing there are politicians trying to exploit that idea for drastic changes in law and power.
Yes you can. But a crises? That’s the huge giveaway. Never let a crisis go to waste. Even a manufactured one. This is nothing nothing more than the reichstag fire
But not that politicians are being paid to deny the science right? It would be stupid to believe the politician who accepted campaign donations from big oil, would deny fact-based climate science because of those 'donations' yeah?
@@scottymeffz5025 lol, you could say the same about big green. It’s become a far bigger political machine than big oil. Bet you can’t tell me the reason why.
@@greattribulation1388 Me? no, I can't tell you why. But the people you are being misguided by sure can. Get milked much?
@@scottymeffz5025 mmm no. Not misguided just know that everything is a sham. Serious question though. Do you know how unprofitable green energy was, is and will be? So poor that they literally have to sell futures. How to you make futures a sure thing? Eliminate the competitors. How? Fossil fuels are bad. Now, do a little research, and see which politicians are heavily invested in green energy. Seriously. Look at it. And draw you own conclusions.
Hi Joe! Coming from The Netherlands, I can tell you politicians here form coalitions and the leading parties still are able to create division. When viewing the debates I see they are focused on managing public opinion. Sincerely and openly posed concerns are dismissed using communication techniques known by any NLP expert. The structure of debates with limited interrupts and limited time helps the establishment to get away with almost anything.
On one side it's funny to watch, but realizing those people actually decide how we should behave and comply really give me the creeps. I see them in ensemble with the media using traumatisation as a weapon on the citizens.
Thanks for another interesting interview! Keep doing what ya doing :)
The far bigger threat right now, by several orders of magnitude, is the globalist institutionalist left, which has a stranglehold on most of the West's power centers and relentlessly OCDs about covid beyond all statistical literacy.
I am also from the Netherlands and can attest to this. Political debates are pure rhetoric and never attempt to bridge the fundamental gaps between different positions.
Joe not finna read this bruh.
@@mouwersor
I agree this is largely the case however it does not quite account for the verity that people do in fact change their minds in the course of a lifetime -- just perhaps not in real time during a debate very often.
People shift by listening to and reading and thinking through the arguments. Some people anyway.
A certain (depressingly) large % are incapable of independent thought, or too scared to front the essential dishonesty of their positions.
I’m from Canada and can say the same thing here unfortunately. Although we have 6 main political parties there are only two dominant parties that pass the torch back and forth. Until a government can implement rank choice voting there’s not much benefit to a multi party system. And corporate money needs to be removed from politics for democracy’s sake
The death of rationality and comprehension skills displayed online is one of the most unpredictable and surprising things I can imagine. People decided they can float the most blatant lie for power if the whole tribe is in on it.
Unpredictable and surprising? Have you seen, what seems to be a silly comedy movie, "Idiocracy"? Check when it was made. Apparently some have seen it coming.
@@tamashumi7961 Thats why its unpredictable and surprising that shit is so stupid it should never be considered to be possible
“Sophistry will spell the end of humanity. Not with a bang but a whimper.” ~ Roe Jogan
Nice to see you on Joe Rogan!
Verlisify?
You aren't expected to know "Science" if you agree with Global Warming/Climate Change doctrine. But, if you disagree with or digress from the Doctrine, you better be ready to list every justification scientifically.
This may not be rational of me to believe, but I have the hunch this man can't be trusted.
Pinker has full on TDS along with Harris and Haidt though these grifters claim how rational they are.
It's truly amazing to me how many people who talk about being rational always end up being the least rational.
These people wouldn’t live the lives it would take to get to their goals on climate change
Dunno what point you're trying to make here, clearly talking about someone inparticular
Dude sniffs his own farts while he justifies his fear of exploring genuinely dangerous ideas in the name of "being rational," when in fact he's just being cucked by the cage of haughty, bourgeois expectations of his peers.
Double talk.
At 7:25 Pinker says, without a hint of irony:
"you believe in your own bias, your own clique, your own coalition, your own tribe, you're own sect"; and,
at 7:33 "you paint the other side as stupid and evil for having different beliefs"; and,
at 7:40 "there's a perverse kind of rationality in being a champion for your cause because you get brownie points from all your friends"
...whilst characterising those who oppose his views in exactly the way he's described!!! (and marketing his new book? trolling for reactions?)
So, is it "irrational" for us to ask "Who are your friends? How many and what type of brownie points do you get?" Or is it "rational" to deploy the logical fallacy of *poisoning the well*?
You're being too rational here. It would go right over Pinker's curly white head.
@@theycallmefingers2 Actually, many of Pinker's historical commentaries on evolutionary psychology are good, but this one has a very bad smell around it.
Pinker apparently believes in zero conspiracies. That super smart and super rich people are 10 steps ahead - which really just skips over rational and becomes obvious lolol
Yes, how dare we think for ourselves and question the official "rational' explanation for things like 9/11
exactly my thought! check out the video i made about this on my channel, you will have a chuckle ;)
"Evidence based policy and governance" as an example of rationality.
This guy lives in Wonderland.
No shit, right? He's not going to change a damned thing. If anything, the downward trend will steepen.
I vaguely remember 1940 something happened in Germany where some selected evidence pointed towards a group of people being "evidently" less than others.
I remember it turning out really bad for a lot of people.
@@Alticroo here we go with the Holocaust comparison again.. you want to be oppressed so bad
@@Alticroo it actually started in the 30's
@@Alticroo There was a "scientific" underpinning to what happened in Germany in the 1930-45, and it came from the U.S. and was called "Eugenics". If you don't know about it, please research it. It was a garbage science that you could actually get degrees in, and it was here, we did it, we were responsible for it, and it provided the "science" behind the motives.
What scares me more than anything when it comes to these touchy subjects today is that so many people seem to only care about what they want to be true rather than knowing what the truth really is.
"The extremes hate each other more" is half right at best, disingenuous at worst. The Left has gone off the deep end with irrational hatred and violence. The Right has remained relatively stable and reasonable by any comparison.