Who are ‘smart people’? I have found many times those with a high level of education are the most fixed in their views because the system has told them they are ‘smart’ & therefore likely to be right.
That's easy. There's something called IQ that represents the measure of someone's intelligence. Those with above average IQ's could be considered relatively "smart".
Precisely... Rational and rationalized aren't the same thing... humans are more naturally rationalizing than plain rational, lol... if that makes any sens?
Stephen (nothing is wrong) Pinker. Everything is great, no problems here. The world is better than ever! Please don't ask him anything about tyranny of governments or the insane things being taught to children.
I lost any interest in Pinker when it came out he went to Epstein's parties. Sorry, I can't take that as if it were some minor issue. What a hypocrite.
Food for thought: What Steven said about conspiracy theories applies both ways: Just as a conspiracy theorist might believe some unfalsifiable supposition because it aligns with their values, conspiracy deniers might believe in a popular narrative which ultimately has no empirical facts to support it and appeals to peoples' values rather than rational reasoning.
Yes, conspiracy theorists might be right every once in a while. It's like they say: Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that they're not after you.
It’s not the same reasoning at all and you kind of explained it. In a conspiracy, you believe it because you hate a group of people. In a mass control propaganda, you believe it because you fear the consequences of not being part of the majority. There are plenty of reasons but I don’t see how they equate at all.
Though I feel this point is made to excuse conspiracy theorists, I quite like how you word it and what you suggest. I would argue that a conspiracy theorist believes what they wish/have faith in even if proven wrong (properly), while those that deny conspiracy theories would accept a conspiracy theory if it was proved (properly). It would perhaps depend on the conspiracy I guess.
Bayesian approach works here too. I believe at least 95% of conspiracy theories are false, OR I'm about 95% percent sure in average that given conspiracy theory is false (obviously not all are equal). This also means that given vast number of those, I'd estimate about 5% of them have lots of truth in those, but obviously I can't say which ones because then I'd be 100% certain of, position which I pretty much never hold because being 100% certain means I can never learn if I'm wrong.
The main problem (ironically) with claiming that people usually neglect the base rate, is that most people don't know the base rate to begin with, because, for a lot of situations, that requires some sort of in depth research about specific statistics, which might not even exist.
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe hes talking about having certain beliefs cause it signals the right thing, while having all the stereotypical views that aer so common, and often almost neccesary, in academia. he unironically got so happy when this old folks home patient, who destroyed the country faster in 1 year than anyone ever before, "won"... just as he has all the academias opinions on the wu fl-, the vac that isnt a real vac by any definition, AGW...
He spends the first half of the interview explaining the biases that he then starts to demonstrate in his own thinking after @25:30 onward. The guy recruiting him obviously played on his biases. Now he believes he made a good decision based on confirmation bias. He then goes on to deride "conspiracy theories" with black and white, tribal thinking. Generally speaking you hear a lot of over-intellectualizing rationalization. There's a vast difference between "Flat Earth" conspiracy theories and critical thinkers who question what they're told and weigh the evidence. Makes it clear Pinker is more dogmatic in his thinking than he is critical and aware of his own biases.
The most ironic part is the discussion they have on people who study biases, who don't change thier own behavior. ie. he knows this phenomenon exists, and turns around and exhibits it himself.
"You can't spend the rest of your life gathering data or your life is gone." Priceless! Thank you Steven, thank you Chris. My observation of same, is those that spend their life gathering data is a way to escape living a sociable life. Maybe these have awkwardness to socialize with others?
It's a matter of personal disposition. Some people find it much more reassuring to think there are no major conspiracies and to simply accept the mainstream narrative at face value. Fact is that conspiracies have occurred at throughout history, different groups have plotted against each other to secure power, and the masses have been propagandized and exploited innumerable times.
Brother, I'm quite new to (regularly watching) your channel and it's such a pleasure. You're great at asking exactly the right questions (questions that I would have loved to ask to a particular guest). The interviews with Jordan Peterson and Robert Greene come to mind. I'm so glad that Dr. Pinker explained the Bayes Theorem here. I was really hoping to find him explaining it since, like you, I've kept coming across suggestions of implementing Bayesian reasoning in life. Thanks for asking that!
The rationaliy bit at the end (i.e. people are rational in things that immediately affect them vs irrational on things outside of that) is similar to what Scott Adams was talking about back in 2015 - people are rational 10% of the time and irrational on the remaining 90%.
Really hard to talk in "communities" when society is closing itself inside virtual bubbles where people listen to their own opinions in an endless corridor of mirrors. I command him for writing the Blank Slate Myth and being highly critical of high modernism and social engineering
Man u must be getting shadow banned or something, I've notice this over the past month or 2. 17k views on this? I had to double check it weren't 171k, thank you for your hard work and diligence in constantly having wonderful guests on.
I often find myself thinking that things were meant to be, but it isn't exactly fatalistic because I also think plenty of things weren't meant to be or that things that were meant to be never came to pass. The way I think about this isn't about removing my own agency and the role I played but actually emphasizing it with a sort of spiritual reward for making the best of any given situation and feeling regret for failing to step up when I could have. In a way even my failures are a necessary and even beautiful part of learning to become more capable and conscious, a failure not learned from then is something that was meant to be but never came to pass. I can't tell you that it's rational but it turns my life into a series of trials to overcome by becoming better, it gives me faith in what I call "the process" (which is kind of like a secular version of God's plan) and the strength to continually face the challenges of life. So its not to say everything is predestined but that I have a responsibility to help the universe do what it means to do through me, to make what is meant to be into a reality. Y'know as opposed to nothing meaning anything and everything being random nonsense that could kill me at any moment. I honestly need all the help I can get and a demoralizing framing of reality really frigs up my vibe. Maybe this is another angle on the limits of rational thinking, for some people a perfectly rational framing of reality leaves them with no reason to do anything except a lot of drugs.
Is that a misquotation of Socrates? And yeah, these are called hermeneutics. They are probably based on something like the Bayesian curve - the point at which you start losing time in trying to still establish certainty and you’re not gaining any further clarity.
As someone who edits video. I think that's the lighting and the way the camera is interpreting the light. They probably didn't properly white balance the video.
My feeling is science should primarily be used and seen as a verb. When we use it as a noun, its current understanding of any given topic tends to come across as finite and indisputable. I like the idea Mr. Pinker had - to say, these are the things we know today, and these are the recommended actions we suggest, but everything is subject to change based on potential additional information gleaned from using the scientific method. Harder to entrench oneself into their camp’s biases when presented this way I think. Any thoughts?
Just dropping in to say that The Blank Slate was the book that completely changed my worldview politically. It should be compulsory reading for anyone studying anything in the social sciences.
For most of history, we believed that some people had better qualities than others, inherited from their parents. You were born a king, or born a peasant. Ironically, a short time after Darwin, the mantra "Man is made by his environment" was promoted by Keir Hardie, and it was drummed into me at school. I've always thought it was harmful to persuade kids and parents that "Anyone can become a doctor". It's a nice thing to believe, but it means that too many people will fail to achieve the goals which are inconsistent with their abilities. My dad, for example, wanted me to be a boxer. Even though I got my first set of gloves when I was 5, and trained daily, and could beat the hell out of most people my age at school, things changed radically after puberty. I found myself punching people in the face (in the ring), and couldn't understand why they were still standing up afterwards. With the Blank Slate, Pinker's given me the ammunition to back up what I believe to be true, and I treat my kids consistent with their innate qualities.
He spends the first half of the interview explaining the biases that he then starts to demonstrate in his own thinking after @25:30 onward. The guy recruiting him obviously played on his biases. Now he believes he made a good decision based on confirmation bias.
@@vv7299 I have values and standards man. I choose what I think and I choose not to think bullshit, take your determinism somewhere else, don't bother reporting back. Have a good one
And I would add that determinism is not the same as fatalism, fatalism is a confused belief. It doesn’t matter wether the world is deterministic to us because the continuity of our past is necessarily like a deterministic evolution of experience, its doesn’t matter if its on rails, what matters is wether it feels on rails, or if there is some continuity between how we feel, the choices we make and our other faculties like rational thought, or systematic thought depending on your definition of rational i guess. i tend to think people think rational means logically sound and valid arguments or thinking, but i tend to think that all that means is that we have a system of assumptions and priors to reason with. So its not fool proof in any way even if the form of the argument is as correct as it can be from within a system if checks and methods. its just the alternative to random inclination, and thats a pretty big difference, if we where perfectly endowed to reason about anything and draw all possible logical conclusions then we would be a lot better than we are but I don’t think it would make much sense to have drives, imagine being able to know everything about every possible experience for example, it doesn’t seem like any experience would have much value to you, and there would be no need for inclinations to drive your actions your one inclination is to understand everything at once with perfect recall. Its just an absurdity, no such experience makes any sense from a human perspective. I think the past looking deterministic is a necessary precondition for much if what we call free will and agency, its just a continuity between who we feel we are and what we feel we want and what we end up doing or thinking, that is what makes us us in a sense, so i think the fatalists have git it backwards. but being worried about the future is useful too, but the fatalistic tendency is to escape from the future or trying to reason about it, its not actually a fear of any particular one, its just a resignation that adds no value. We don’t know what the future holds in any case regardless of questions of determinism and we feel like we have agency, thats all we ever need, its not going to feel any better even if you where free and simultaneously had a personality, in retrospect having a personality demands that your past looks indistinguishable from deterministic. it kind of doesn’t matter practically wether its true or not, and its always good to look forward and work hard wether its fated or not 🪕🐒
Im not sure why this guy hasnt been hired for 5 Mil to help write high school textbooks. Should be mandatory class grades 8-12. Imagine how much better the world would be.
Did anyone notice, find peculiar, that he included psychism and past lives with fake news, when they are categorically separate? His explaination of bias, however, was very well done!
I don’t think a good definition of the term conspiracy was established. That unrealistic part is the current mainstream narrative of conspiracy theories in general, but the word itself is not tied to its probability of occurring. It’s a sociological scenario of coordination in secrecy for some political gain.
God I can't stand this asshole. He goes chapter and verse through rationality and evidence while simultaneously broadcasting his deep biases which negate everything he has to say. 'Why do people think bill gates is trying to inject us with microchips to surveil us?' because, objectively, he believes in the project to use the IoT in conjunction with implanted detection to diagnose, among other things, health problems like pandemics. He believes in big data with healthcare. He's responsible for trying to create and forward this project. You can definitely say 'this is a reasonable thing to try to do with our new technology' but you can't pretend it's bizarre and irrational. Why do people believe in chemtrails? Because the government has worked on projects for weather manipulation and the mass dispersal of various chemical and biological agents. Are those things being done by every jet that passes over? Probably not, but on the other hand, rationally speaking HOW WOULD YOU KNOW. The whole point of secret government projects is that they're fucking secret. Dismissing concerns based on the mountain of evidence of malfeasance and historical bad behavior as a reasonable predictor of future bad behavior is not irrational, and, what's really frustrating is to merely be spreading the idea of conspiracy as irrational lunacy is, itself, a product of propaganda programs designed to do exactly that. While it's very hard to ever know what's currently being done wrong, you only have to go back in time 50 years to see what has been put on the record and make reasonable assumptions about what's being done now. Are all conspiracies a net negative or done with evil intent? No. Do they exist? Absolutely. But here's this chickenshit making an appearance to disdain points of view which don't conform to his preconceptions. He's part of the Sam Harris/Dawkins crowd that does damage to the ideas of rationality and evidence-based reasoning with every personal bias they cloak in lofty ideals. These people are poison for science, and they more than anyone else are responsible for the crisis in faith in our institutions. Even his comment about the guy who asserted the effectiveness of lockdowns--as if to offer an olive branch. But it was worthless because in his personal estimation, the guy looked at all the evidence, and then came out with the conclusion that they do help. Because that's Pinker's bias--they help. Except, what if the entire premise is wrong because we're not discussing whether it's possible to keep people separate and limit the spread of a disease--we care about whether the harm thereby done is *less* than the effect of letting the disease spread, especially when considered across lifetimes when comparing the deaths to a disease whose average victim is *older* than the average life expectancy of a human being in the first place, vs the effects on a young person of losing a job, being confined where drug habits and mental illness can develop, and the overall effect on the population of pumping fear and stress into their brains, which have a known negative effect on all cause mortality. Not to mention, disease is pervasive and continuous in human history, and not only does hiding from it make the problem worse, by making our immune systems fragile from disuse, but call into question the sustainability of locking down for anything other than a very high mortality rate disease. His whole approach is deceitful, in the sense that what he needs you to know is that 'somebody looked at ALL the WORTHWILE evidence, and concluded [insert the opinion he already had]'. TOXIC ACADEMIA
@@cosmicmuffet1053 i appreciate your effort, ive grown to despise these people as well "He's part of the Sam Harris/Dawkins crowd that does damage to the ideas of rationality and evidence-based reasoning with every personal bias they cloak in lofty ideals. These people are poison for science, and they more than anyone else are responsible for the crisis in faith in our institutions" perfectly said. after their endless whine of how trum is the threat to our institutions...
I agree with Pinker on many things, but it seems unfortunately naive/idealistic to expect the average person, or even those more intelligent than average, to simply choose to be more rational. It doesn't work that way in reality, does it? It seems like he is making observations but can't offer a realistic solution. How wonderful would it be if we could just ask people to "be more rational"? ... I happen to be an extremely rational person, and most people frustrate me to no end with how gullible they are and how and biased their thinking is, but they just don't see it. (And I probably annoy them by being "overly analytical" but that's how I am wired and I enjoy it - this way of thinking has helped me get through many struggles). I also dislike how a lot of people believe that you cannot be both rational and empathetic. Or how they confuse emotionality for irrationality. It is absolutely possible to be both (rational and empathetic). But according to my life experience, it's rare to come across this combination. Metacognition is SO not common. He seems to assume people can be trained to solve issues by simply exercising their "rationality muscles", but it doesn't work that way.
I appreciate Steven Pinker but pure reason isn't an end all be all, if you lok at 'lives well lived' I would submit that most people that live happily to an old age well above average and with a relatively lighter heart, don't achieve that by being normatively extra rational than the populace. Yea a lot of that success has to do with things surround a better environment .. wealth etc. But alos just being a 'mover' not a 'sit and thinker' . so often, anecdotally it seems , the 'mover' .. dancer, constant casual worker seems to make it post 100 years of age .. most 'thinkers' seem to die quite young .. gamers even younger. So much of this just comes down to genetic disposition ...
@@suspendedtwice4sayingrasis261 there seems to be a rather pathetic anti-Pinker mob in lots of comments sections. Nothing interesting to add nor any decent critiques of Pinker’s work
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe Exactly. And they're embarrassingly unfamiliar with his work and what he's done in the academic field. They've heard of him fairly recently when he probably said something that didn't sit well with them and you can be sure these mouth breathers have never read anything he's published, since they don't habitually read anything else other than price tags at Walmart.
Russian invaded Ukraine a month later. I would disagree that the prior is simply how many invasions there have been. The prior is represents the state of knowledge before you add evidence. There are very different priors for China invading Taiwan versus China invading Japan or Russia invading Brazil.
I think that the more u study and learn the more u seem to be irrational as u stray away from the norm so even if u became a professional at rationalizing u steel will be extremely bias
I see NO problem with trying to be rational because I already know full well that I happen be very broadly rational. You can't encounter any true issues when you have very justifiable and accurate confidence in your opinions. In short - the "trying" for me ended long ago. Not because I've arrived at rationality, but only because I had always been there from the very beginning. I've never needed to launch myself on a path towards sanity simply because I've always been there. 99 times out of 100, it depends on nothing but good old fashioned common sense of the sort which - these days - is virtually non-existent. Let's take a sample from politics: Donald Trump has sanity, and Joe Biden has very little if any sanity at all. This of course can be very easily measured by the sorts of results which each president brought to us. You can choose to go bonkers about crap like global warming, or you can support those in your community who fight crime. Yes, IN-sane versus totally SANE -
What is it with these anti-Pinker goons who appear in all the comments sections? They typically claim he’s irrational and/or deluded without referring to any specific examples or actually rebutting things he’s said
He's more untrustworthy than anything. Pinker had suspicious ties to Epstein and actually thinks he killed himself, the cameras just happened to be not working, the guards just happened to fall asleep.
I suspect this happens to most people who have clear opinions. Someone out there will disagree (who also happens to have no self-awareness), and the internet is a vast place. On Pinker specifically, people who regularly run into adversity probably resent someone who says "life is better than ever", without realizing that a sample of one is not statistically significant. In this very video, Pinker even points out that some beliefs are held for reasons other than actual factual relevance (such as emotional stability).
Because his New Atheist-style “Reason and Rationality” schtick is tiresome. People are also getting skeptical of the endless harping on statistics that show how great everything is while at the same time their friends and family are noticeably worse off emotionally. It doesn’t help that everyone of every political persuasion seems to be able to produce statistics that support their position. So in this glut of conflicting data, we’re forced to resort to the anecdotal. People also don’t like Pinker’s implication that the reason they’re unhappy, anxious, increasingly neurotic is because they just aren’t grateful enough to Modernity for producing all this cool stuff.
*Dear person that's reading this, we don't each other but I wish you a long life full of happiness!✨ The past is gone, and blaming it won't bring anything, accept it and keep moving forward 🗻. You have true value, for the joy you bring into the life of others, all the keys 🔑 for a happy life are in your hands 🔓* *I beleive in you!*
What the fuck is he talking about with prostate cancer rates? He gives an example that's 50/50, then says the rate you have prostate cancer is .01. How do you get .01 from 50??
Being part of a community to reveal biases is practically impossible when you have social anxiety disorder (I'd imagine it's much the same with other anxiety disorders). The clarifying views and input of other people are absent so everything is an irrational echo chamber churning out totally believable lies all the time. It's why therapy can be so liberating. I like to think of anxiety disorders like being a radical ideologue. I was an anti-me ideologue.
Your generation is going to have a lot on their plate someone who just left medicine you cannot believe how many people are so obese but do not think they're sick it's called fat shaming remember without imitation there is no culture so if you're looking at me and I'm looking at you neither one sees the other one falling it is very difficult for homosapiens to be rational most people are average but I guarantee you don't consider yourself average we always have to protect our self-esteem best of luck to you I'm on my side and concern for your generation technology is throwing a lot at you and it's the first time you're actually seeing humans lose their instinct please read Future Shock and pay attention to the psychological effects of technological change please be safe and you cannot legislate self-esteem if everyone gets a trophy it loses its value and our ability to engage for long periods of time are decreasing I even wonder if you read this whole message
Watch 1791's take on his involvement with Epstein: ruclips.net/video/qd9Gbh-u-VM/видео.html He rejected and called out Epstein from the beginning. Many other videos here on RUclips have information on this as well.
Ever watch this guy debate Matt Taibbi? He behaved pretty badly. Real curious what he has to say about being "rational". [ Edit: I mistook him for Malcolm Gladwell. 😆 Thanks @avengemybreath3084 ]
Hello cult members. Here's the timestamps:
00:00 Intro
00:26 Is Studying Cognitive Biases Beneficial?
09:42 Applying Bayesian Reasoning in Life
22:20 Tensions between Rationality & Intuition
32:20 How Conspiracies Subvert Rationality
41:52 Conclusion
I think that Steven had a bit of white powder before the interview...
Like the conspiracy that he was on Epsteins island now and then.
Who are ‘smart people’?
I have found many times those with a high level of education are the most fixed in their views because the system has told them they are ‘smart’ & therefore likely to be right.
Fixed convictions are dangerous
That's easy. There's something called IQ that represents the measure of someone's intelligence. Those with above average IQ's could be considered relatively "smart".
@@maxjohnson1758 Smart like a computer perhaps.
The problem with intelligent people is they're good at rationalizing things (correct or not) to themselves and others better than most.
I find my problem is when someone isn’t willing to do a deep dive with me to find out some stuff. And to try to create a coherent picture of things.
Educated "intelligent" people are super good at rationalizing things that evade common sense.
Precisely... Rational and rationalized aren't the same thing... humans are more naturally rationalizing than plain rational, lol... if that makes any sens?
@@LeSyd1984 rationality is a creation of the human mind. In nature cause and effect breaks down
Intelligence can come with pride which can cause problems. Also, intelligent is not the same as making wise decisions.
Yep, this same moron did a austistic little dance number when Biden won, because “the adults were running things again” and posted on the internet.
@@christoferprestipino7433 I’d love to know how many Biden voters regret their decision at this point? Of course they would never admit it though
One of the great minds of our time that we don't listen to enough. Unfortunately, from what I see, most people just don't understand him.
Just finished reading The Modern Denial of Human Nature, it was a good one.
Stephen (nothing is wrong) Pinker. Everything is great, no problems here. The world is better than ever!
Please don't ask him anything about tyranny of governments or the insane things being taught to children.
Pinker talks about those things all the time lol, read a bit more maybe.
@@ruairidhmcmillan2484
Has he mentioned the Great Reset?
Social credit score?
Universal Basic Income?
@@ruairidhmcmillan2484
This is basically exactly what's happening and somehow most people support it.
ruclips.net/video/JZwJpieVym4/видео.html
I lost any interest in Pinker when it came out he went to Epstein's parties. Sorry, I can't take that as if it were some minor issue. What a hypocrite.
@@carlotapuig Epstein and the major-attraction-to-minor bias.
Food for thought: What Steven said about conspiracy theories applies both ways: Just as a conspiracy theorist might believe some unfalsifiable supposition because it aligns with their values, conspiracy deniers might believe in a popular narrative which ultimately has no empirical facts to support it and appeals to peoples' values rather than rational reasoning.
Boom! You nailed it. I like how you worded that too.
Yes, conspiracy theorists might be right every once in a while. It's like they say: Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that they're not after you.
It’s not the same reasoning at all and you kind of explained it. In a conspiracy, you believe it because you hate a group of people. In a mass control propaganda, you believe it because you fear the consequences of not being part of the majority. There are plenty of reasons but I don’t see how they equate at all.
Though I feel this point is made to excuse conspiracy theorists, I quite like how you word it and what you suggest. I would argue that a conspiracy theorist believes what they wish/have faith in even if proven wrong (properly), while those that deny conspiracy theories would accept a conspiracy theory if it was proved (properly). It would perhaps depend on the conspiracy I guess.
Bayesian approach works here too. I believe at least 95% of conspiracy theories are false, OR I'm about 95% percent sure in average that given conspiracy theory is false (obviously not all are equal).
This also means that given vast number of those, I'd estimate about 5% of them have lots of truth in those, but obviously I can't say which ones because then I'd be 100% certain of, position which I pretty much never hold because being 100% certain means I can never learn if I'm wrong.
This interview needed to be twice as long and in person.
*There are only 3 things that are certain in life, death, taxes and this channel posting high quality videos*
*Great Stuff!*
I'll die later
@@vv7299 he is living rent free in your mind 😂
Yea I’m a savant 😎
The main problem (ironically) with claiming that people usually neglect the base rate, is that most people don't know the base rate to begin with, because, for a lot of situations, that requires some sort of in depth research about specific statistics, which might not even exist.
It's funny when you can watch an interview like this and spot all the biases in thier own explanations.
Examples?
Examples. Now.
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe hes talking about having certain beliefs cause it signals the right thing, while having all the stereotypical views that aer so common, and often almost neccesary, in academia.
he unironically got so happy when this old folks home patient, who destroyed the country faster in 1 year than anyone ever before, "won"...
just as he has all the academias opinions on the wu fl-, the vac that isnt a real vac by any definition, AGW...
He spends the first half of the interview explaining the biases that he then starts to demonstrate in his own thinking after @25:30 onward. The guy recruiting him obviously played on his biases. Now he believes he made a good decision based on confirmation bias. He then goes on to deride "conspiracy theories" with black and white, tribal thinking. Generally speaking you hear a lot of over-intellectualizing rationalization. There's a vast difference between "Flat Earth" conspiracy theories and critical thinkers who question what they're told and weigh the evidence. Makes it clear Pinker is more dogmatic in his thinking than he is critical and aware of his own biases.
The most ironic part is the discussion they have on people who study biases, who don't change thier own behavior. ie. he knows this phenomenon exists, and turns around and exhibits it himself.
Best podcast guest ever for every host. Can’t get enough of this guy.
You might be gay in that case 🤔
This man's hair is something to admire.
Chris is having the best conversations with well cultured individuals. These are perfect for listening to on the job
Great episode Chris! Keep up the great work!
"You can't spend the rest of your life gathering data or your life is gone." Priceless! Thank you Steven, thank you Chris. My observation of same, is those that spend their life gathering data is a way to escape living a sociable life. Maybe these have awkwardness to socialize with others?
Conspiracies are reassuring. It's more comforting to believe someone evil is in charge rather than think nobody is in charge.
It's a matter of personal disposition. Some people find it much more reassuring to think there are no major conspiracies and to simply accept the mainstream narrative at face value. Fact is that conspiracies have occurred at throughout history, different groups have plotted against each other to secure power, and the masses have been propagandized and exploited innumerable times.
Steven Pinker is turning into the guy from Heaven's Gate.
Brother, I'm quite new to (regularly watching) your channel and it's such a pleasure. You're great at asking exactly the right questions (questions that I would have loved to ask to a particular guest). The interviews with Jordan Peterson and Robert Greene come to mind.
I'm so glad that Dr. Pinker explained the Bayes Theorem here. I was really hoping to find him explaining it since, like you, I've kept coming across suggestions of implementing Bayesian reasoning in life. Thanks for asking that!
Check out the book "skeptics guide to the universe". Great breakdown of cognitive biases. Super entertaining and informative.
The greenscreen looks hilarious.
remember back when he was just Steven Pink?
Awesome interview
Thank you
The rationaliy bit at the end (i.e. people are rational in things that immediately affect them vs irrational on things outside of that) is similar to what Scott Adams was talking about back in 2015 - people are rational 10% of the time and irrational on the remaining 90%.
Really hard to talk in "communities" when society is closing itself inside virtual bubbles where people listen to their own opinions in an endless corridor of mirrors. I command him for writing the Blank Slate Myth and being highly critical of high modernism and social engineering
I notice the ever increasing echo chambers as well. I don’t see it changing either
Wow! That got super-interesting right at the end when Pinker talked about common knowledge. Can't wait for that!
You should talk with Iain mcgilchrist
YES!
Excellent conversation Chris, you really are more than just a pretty face. Keep up the good work, cheers mate.
Man u must be getting shadow banned or something, I've notice this over the past month or 2. 17k views on this? I had to double check it weren't 171k, thank you for your hard work and diligence in constantly having wonderful guests on.
I often find myself thinking that things were meant to be, but it isn't exactly fatalistic because I also think plenty of things weren't meant to be or that things that were meant to be never came to pass.
The way I think about this isn't about removing my own agency and the role I played but actually emphasizing it with a sort of spiritual reward for making the best of any given situation and feeling regret for failing to step up when I could have. In a way even my failures are a necessary and even beautiful part of learning to become more capable and conscious, a failure not learned from then is something that was meant to be but never came to pass.
I can't tell you that it's rational but it turns my life into a series of trials to overcome by becoming better, it gives me faith in what I call "the process" (which is kind of like a secular version of God's plan) and the strength to continually face the challenges of life. So its not to say everything is predestined but that I have a responsibility to help the universe do what it means to do through me, to make what is meant to be into a reality.
Y'know as opposed to nothing meaning anything and everything being random nonsense that could kill me at any moment. I honestly need all the help I can get and a demoralizing framing of reality really frigs up my vibe. Maybe this is another angle on the limits of rational thinking, for some people a perfectly rational framing of reality leaves them with no reason to do anything except a lot of drugs.
As a worthy person: *“Only make decisions that support your self-image, self-esteem, and self-worth.”*
Kids , don’t mess around with electrical sockets
It is irrational to only gather information and not act on it.
Aside from Scott Alexander Astral Codex Ten... any other other substack people to follow?
Looking forward to Algorithms to Live By!
"The wisest man is the man who knows he knows nothing." At best all we ever have is evidence that weighs more in one direction or another.
Is that a misquotation of Socrates? And yeah, these are called hermeneutics. They are probably based on something like the Bayesian curve - the point at which you start losing time in trying to still establish certainty and you’re not gaining any further clarity.
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 It's a paraphrasing of many sayings, across many cultures. An idea you perhaps haven't fully internalized yet.
Woah so hip! Steven Pinker dyed his hair green!
As someone who edits video. I think that's the lighting and the way the camera is interpreting the light. They probably didn't properly white balance the video.
You’re so good at what you do Chris. Hope to be like you one day.
My feeling is science should primarily be used and seen as a verb. When we use it as a noun, its current understanding of any given topic tends to come across as finite and indisputable. I like the idea Mr. Pinker had - to say, these are the things we know today, and these are the recommended actions we suggest, but everything is subject to change based on potential additional information gleaned from using the scientific method. Harder to entrench oneself into their camp’s biases when presented this way I think. Any thoughts?
Just dropping in to say that The Blank Slate was the book that completely changed my worldview politically. It should be compulsory reading for anyone studying anything in the social sciences.
Because it changed YOUR worldview?
How did it change your view?
For most of history, we believed that some people had better qualities than others, inherited from their parents. You were born a king, or born a peasant.
Ironically, a short time after Darwin, the mantra "Man is made by his environment" was promoted by Keir Hardie, and it was drummed into me at school.
I've always thought it was harmful to persuade kids and parents that "Anyone can become a doctor". It's a nice thing to believe, but it means that too many people will fail to achieve the goals which are inconsistent with their abilities.
My dad, for example, wanted me to be a boxer.
Even though I got my first set of gloves when I was 5, and trained daily, and could beat the hell out of most people my age at school, things changed radically after puberty. I found myself punching people in the face (in the ring), and couldn't understand why they were still standing up afterwards.
With the Blank Slate, Pinker's given me the ammunition to back up what I believe to be true, and I treat my kids consistent with their innate qualities.
Is that like "Industrial Society & it's Future"?
if so, then yes... ;)
Computers have done this. It is the biggest problem we face, the break down of reason and we need to solve it. I don't see any solution.
It's funny to watch Pinker go in and out of rationality.
Specific examples of him going out of rationality?
He spends the first half of the interview explaining the biases that he then starts to demonstrate in his own thinking after @25:30 onward. The guy recruiting him obviously played on his biases. Now he believes he made a good decision based on confirmation bias.
6:48 how to strive for rationality
I dig pinker!!! Politics make you dumber!! Societies narratives make us dumber...THINK FOR YOURSELF MEN!!!
ironic coming from the most TDS derranged c lown ever
@@vv7299 so being told what to think is better?
@@vv7299 yes there are no original thoughts, I like to CHOOSE which thoughts I think, does that work better for you?
@@vv7299 I have values and standards man. I choose what I think and I choose not to think bullshit, take your determinism somewhere else, don't bother reporting back. Have a good one
@@vv7299 but that couldn't be your thought since no thought is original, maybe you should alter your "thought so" with. "Ahh you're right"
Fascinating and thought-provoking discussion. Thank You very much!
🚀 for the algorithm!
Who gets to go on 30 dates and then pick the next best based on the average??
And even still, why not re-contact the best from the first 30
For the Algo ✌️
I loved his book
And I would add that determinism is not the same as fatalism, fatalism is a confused belief. It doesn’t matter wether the world is deterministic to us because the continuity of our past is necessarily like a deterministic evolution of experience, its doesn’t matter if its on rails, what matters is wether it feels on rails, or if there is some continuity between how we feel, the choices we make and our other faculties like rational thought, or systematic thought depending on your definition of rational i guess. i tend to think people think rational means logically sound and valid arguments or thinking, but i tend to think that all that means is that we have a system of assumptions and priors to reason with. So its not fool proof in any way even if the form of the argument is as correct as it can be from within a system if checks and methods. its just the alternative to random inclination, and thats a pretty big difference, if we where perfectly endowed to reason about anything and draw all possible logical conclusions then we would be a lot better than we are but I don’t think it would make much sense to have drives, imagine being able to know everything about every possible experience for example, it doesn’t seem like any experience would have much value to you, and there would be no need for inclinations to drive your actions your one inclination is to understand everything at once with perfect recall. Its just an absurdity, no such experience makes any sense from a human perspective. I think the past looking deterministic is a necessary precondition for much if what we call free will and agency, its just a continuity between who we feel we are and what we feel we want and what we end up doing or thinking, that is what makes us us in a sense, so i think the fatalists have git it backwards. but being worried about the future is useful too, but the fatalistic tendency is to escape from the future or trying to reason about it, its not actually a fear of any particular one, its just a resignation that adds no value. We don’t know what the future holds in any case regardless of questions of determinism and we feel like we have agency, thats all we ever need, its not going to feel any better even if you where free and simultaneously had a personality, in retrospect having a personality demands that your past looks indistinguishable from deterministic. it kind of doesn’t matter practically wether its true or not, and its always good to look forward and work hard wether its fated or not 🪕🐒
Very interesting. Pinker's prostate cancer example to explain Bayesian inference was a total mess though
Im not sure why this guy hasnt been hired for 5 Mil to help write high school textbooks. Should be mandatory class grades 8-12. Imagine how much better the world would be.
Imagine if the education establishment was interested in educating people.
Live action Rick and Morty
Did anyone notice, find peculiar, that he included psychism and past lives with fake news, when they are categorically separate? His explaination of bias, however, was very well done!
Why would that be peculiar?
Btw, have you and MM decided when and where for Russia tour?
3:42 - Unintended fart slipped out, Required extended effort to silence! 😁
More of such contents ❤
Why does Pinker look as if he was electrocuted right before the interview?
I don’t think a good definition of the term conspiracy was established. That unrealistic part is the current mainstream narrative of conspiracy theories in general, but the word itself is not tied to its probability of occurring. It’s a sociological scenario of coordination in secrecy for some political gain.
3:06 less likely to be scammed by medical charlatans! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAA
God I can't stand this asshole. He goes chapter and verse through rationality and evidence while simultaneously broadcasting his deep biases which negate everything he has to say. 'Why do people think bill gates is trying to inject us with microchips to surveil us?' because, objectively, he believes in the project to use the IoT in conjunction with implanted detection to diagnose, among other things, health problems like pandemics. He believes in big data with healthcare. He's responsible for trying to create and forward this project. You can definitely say 'this is a reasonable thing to try to do with our new technology' but you can't pretend it's bizarre and irrational. Why do people believe in chemtrails? Because the government has worked on projects for weather manipulation and the mass dispersal of various chemical and biological agents. Are those things being done by every jet that passes over? Probably not, but on the other hand, rationally speaking HOW WOULD YOU KNOW. The whole point of secret government projects is that they're fucking secret. Dismissing concerns based on the mountain of evidence of malfeasance and historical bad behavior as a reasonable predictor of future bad behavior is not irrational, and, what's really frustrating is to merely be spreading the idea of conspiracy as irrational lunacy is, itself, a product of propaganda programs designed to do exactly that. While it's very hard to ever know what's currently being done wrong, you only have to go back in time 50 years to see what has been put on the record and make reasonable assumptions about what's being done now. Are all conspiracies a net negative or done with evil intent? No. Do they exist? Absolutely. But here's this chickenshit making an appearance to disdain points of view which don't conform to his preconceptions. He's part of the Sam Harris/Dawkins crowd that does damage to the ideas of rationality and evidence-based reasoning with every personal bias they cloak in lofty ideals. These people are poison for science, and they more than anyone else are responsible for the crisis in faith in our institutions. Even his comment about the guy who asserted the effectiveness of lockdowns--as if to offer an olive branch. But it was worthless because in his personal estimation, the guy looked at all the evidence, and then came out with the conclusion that they do help. Because that's Pinker's bias--they help. Except, what if the entire premise is wrong because we're not discussing whether it's possible to keep people separate and limit the spread of a disease--we care about whether the harm thereby done is *less* than the effect of letting the disease spread, especially when considered across lifetimes when comparing the deaths to a disease whose average victim is *older* than the average life expectancy of a human being in the first place, vs the effects on a young person of losing a job, being confined where drug habits and mental illness can develop, and the overall effect on the population of pumping fear and stress into their brains, which have a known negative effect on all cause mortality. Not to mention, disease is pervasive and continuous in human history, and not only does hiding from it make the problem worse, by making our immune systems fragile from disuse, but call into question the sustainability of locking down for anything other than a very high mortality rate disease. His whole approach is deceitful, in the sense that what he needs you to know is that 'somebody looked at ALL the WORTHWILE evidence, and concluded [insert the opinion he already had]'.
TOXIC ACADEMIA
@@cosmicmuffet1053 i appreciate your effort, ive grown to despise these people as well
"He's part of the Sam Harris/Dawkins crowd that does damage to the ideas of rationality and evidence-based reasoning with every personal bias they cloak in lofty ideals. These people are poison for science, and they more than anyone else are responsible for the crisis in faith in our institutions"
perfectly said. after their endless whine of how trum is the threat to our institutions...
from looking at the comments, Pinker is right, dumb people are all over the place.
I agree with Pinker on many things, but it seems unfortunately naive/idealistic to expect the average person, or even those more intelligent than average, to simply choose to be more rational. It doesn't work that way in reality, does it? It seems like he is making observations but can't offer a realistic solution. How wonderful would it be if we could just ask people to "be more rational"? ... I happen to be an extremely rational person, and most people frustrate me to no end with how gullible they are and how and biased their thinking is, but they just don't see it. (And I probably annoy them by being "overly analytical" but that's how I am wired and I enjoy it - this way of thinking has helped me get through many struggles). I also dislike how a lot of people believe that you cannot be both rational and empathetic. Or how they confuse emotionality for irrationality. It is absolutely possible to be both (rational and empathetic). But according to my life experience, it's rare to come across this combination. Metacognition is SO not common. He seems to assume people can be trained to solve issues by simply exercising their "rationality muscles", but it doesn't work that way.
"But" how would the not so adept be cognizent enough to analize correctly ----
The eyes. Look at the eyes
What on earth are you talking about?
I appreciate Steven Pinker but pure reason isn't an end all be all, if you lok at 'lives well lived' I would submit that most people that live happily to an old age well above average and with a relatively lighter heart, don't achieve that by being normatively extra rational than the populace. Yea a lot of that success has to do with things surround a better environment .. wealth etc. But alos just being a 'mover' not a 'sit and thinker' . so often, anecdotally it seems , the 'mover' .. dancer, constant casual worker seems to make it post 100 years of age .. most 'thinkers' seem to die quite young .. gamers even younger. So much of this just comes down to genetic disposition ...
Sure, but was that the case for society before reason tamed our historical bloodiness toward each other?
I hope I am correct in seeing this a sarcastic reply...if it is... it's brilliant@@EmperorsNewWardrobe
This guy looks so much like Marshall Herff Applewhite Jr. the heavens gate cult leader. They have the exact same eyes and speech pattern its creepy
Curious how a well-compensated academic looks like a homeless bum.
Pinker is very fishy, to say the least...
Curious as to why there are so many idiots in this comment section.
@@suspendedtwice4sayingrasis261 there seems to be a rather pathetic anti-Pinker mob in lots of comments sections. Nothing interesting to add nor any decent critiques of Pinker’s work
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe Exactly. And they're embarrassingly unfamiliar with his work and what he's done in the academic field. They've heard of him fairly recently when he probably said something that didn't sit well with them and you can be sure these mouth breathers have never read anything he's published, since they don't habitually read anything else other than price tags at Walmart.
Only 42 minutes?! RIP
Russian invaded Ukraine a month later.
I would disagree that the prior is simply how many invasions there have been. The prior is represents the state of knowledge before you add evidence. There are very different priors for China invading Taiwan versus China invading Japan or Russia invading Brazil.
I think that the more u study and learn the more u seem to be irrational as u stray away from the norm so even if u became a professional at rationalizing u steel will be extremely bias
Has Pinker been sniffing glue?
I see NO problem with trying to be rational because I already know full well that I happen be very broadly rational. You can't encounter any true issues when you have very justifiable and accurate confidence in your opinions.
In short - the "trying" for me ended long ago. Not because I've arrived at rationality, but only because I had always been there from the very beginning.
I've never needed to launch myself on a path towards sanity simply because I've always been there. 99 times out of 100, it depends on nothing but good old fashioned common sense of the sort which - these days - is virtually
non-existent. Let's take a sample from politics: Donald Trump has sanity, and Joe Biden has very little if any sanity at all. This of course can be very easily measured by the sorts of results which each president brought to us. You can choose to go bonkers about crap like global warming, or you can support those in your community who fight crime. Yes, IN-sane versus totally SANE -
33 dates. Aluminati confirmed.
Goddamn i wish i had hair like that
Do politics make people dumb or are dumb people attracted to politics?
What is it with these anti-Pinker goons who appear in all the comments sections? They typically claim he’s irrational and/or deluded without referring to any specific examples or actually rebutting things he’s said
He's more untrustworthy than anything. Pinker had suspicious ties to Epstein and actually thinks he killed himself, the cameras just happened to be not working, the guards just happened to fall asleep.
He voted for Joe Biden. That’s all you need to know
@@mesmeriffic let’s say, for the sake of argument, he’s untrustworthy. How is it not true when he says something like ‘reason is non-negotiable’?
I suspect this happens to most people who have clear opinions. Someone out there will disagree (who also happens to have no self-awareness), and the internet is a vast place.
On Pinker specifically, people who regularly run into adversity probably resent someone who says "life is better than ever", without realizing that a sample of one is not statistically significant. In this very video, Pinker even points out that some beliefs are held for reasons other than actual factual relevance (such as emotional stability).
Because his New Atheist-style “Reason and Rationality” schtick is tiresome. People are also getting skeptical of the endless harping on statistics that show how great everything is while at the same time their friends and family are noticeably worse off emotionally.
It doesn’t help that everyone of every political persuasion seems to be able to produce statistics that support their position.
So in this glut of conflicting data, we’re forced to resort to the anecdotal. People also don’t like Pinker’s implication that the reason they’re unhappy, anxious, increasingly neurotic is because they just aren’t grateful enough to Modernity for producing all this cool stuff.
Take a drink every time he smacks his tongue against the roof of his mouth.
algorithm အတွက်
Comment for the algo
LY
@@ChrisWillx LY2.
Check out Yellowjackets. You'll thank me.
*Dear person that's reading this, we don't each other but I wish you a long life full of happiness!✨ The past is gone, and blaming it won't bring anything, accept it and keep moving forward 🗻. You have true value, for the joy you bring into the life of others, all the keys 🔑 for a happy life are in your hands 🔓*
*I beleive in you!*
What the fuck is he talking about with prostate cancer rates? He gives an example that's 50/50, then says the rate you have prostate cancer is .01. How do you get .01 from 50??
Being part of a community to reveal biases is practically impossible when you have social anxiety disorder (I'd imagine it's much the same with other anxiety disorders). The clarifying views and input of other people are absent so everything is an irrational echo chamber churning out totally believable lies all the time. It's why therapy can be so liberating.
I like to think of anxiety disorders like being a radical ideologue. I was an anti-me ideologue.
Weighing in the cost of inaction requires further reasoning, there is no way our of reasoning, its like pretending to be conscious of unconsciousness.
Really covid questions an answer s B.S.
Old age makes you dumber, Steven.
Your generation is going to have a lot on their plate someone who just left medicine you cannot believe how many people are so obese but do not think they're sick it's called fat shaming remember without imitation there is no culture so if you're looking at me and I'm looking at you neither one sees the other one falling it is very difficult for homosapiens to be rational most people are average but I guarantee you don't consider yourself average we always have to protect our self-esteem best of luck to you I'm on my side and concern for your generation technology is throwing a lot at you and it's the first time you're actually seeing humans lose their instinct please read Future Shock and pay attention to the psychological effects of technological change please be safe and you cannot legislate self-esteem if everyone gets a trophy it loses its value and our ability to engage for long periods of time are decreasing I even wonder if you read this whole message
for the algo
Tell me this guy doesn’t look a little insane
More than a little....
Been awake thinking logically
Sounds like cheap witch-hunting to me
Hell yeah😂😂😂
Who isn’t insane? Everybody is in their own way
Looking a bit pink. Hitting the bottle?
He doesn't look well at all, he seems to have took a decline but I'm only noting it from a point of concern but hope its the lighting or something
😌 Promo'SM.
This is a comment
I ended nationalism as the World's highest mind.
This guy is so irrational. The irony is palpable,
Specific examples?
Examples. Now.
Pinker: It's irrational to be rational.
Me: So being rational is irrational, and irrationality is preferable? Yeah, bullshit.
I think you just have a hard time understanding him. I'm not trying to insult you. I've seen people misquoted and grossly misunderstand Pinker a lot.
Heh, 'Rational Forecasting' sounds like an oxymoron 😏
Like 'common sense'
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe I mean common sense is an oxymoron. And you appear to agree 😉
@@letsgoBrandon204 how is common sense an oxymoron?
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe Because sense doesn't seem to be very common. Tis a joke
@@letsgoBrandon204 why though?
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe Are you a troll?
I only watched because I thought you might ask him about Epstein. I was disappointed
Watch 1791's take on his involvement with Epstein: ruclips.net/video/qd9Gbh-u-VM/видео.html
He rejected and called out Epstein from the beginning. Many other videos here on RUclips have information on this as well.
Not a fan 🤷🏻♂️
Any interesting points to add though?
Ever watch this guy debate Matt Taibbi? He behaved pretty badly. Real curious what he has to say about being "rational".
[ Edit: I mistook him for Malcolm Gladwell. 😆 Thanks @avengemybreath3084 ]
Wasn’t that Malcolm Gladwell? Same hair I guess.
@@avengemybreath3084 Woah good call! - My bad.
Pinker is high on something.