In-Person Convo with Steven Pinker on Rationality: What it is, Why it Seems Scarce, Why it Matters
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 окт 2021
- The Michael Shermer Show # 219
In this in-person conversation (in Shermer's home) with Steven Pinker on his new book Rationality, the Harvard psychologist and Michael Shermer discuss how today humanity is reaching new heights of scientific understanding - and also appears to be losing its mind. How can a species that developed vaccines for COVID-19 in less than a year produce so much fake news, medical quackery, and conspiracy theorizing?
Pinker rejects the cynical cliché that humans are simply irrational - cavemen out of time saddled with biases, fallacies, and illusions. After all, we discovered the laws of nature, lengthened and enriched our lives, and set out the benchmarks for rationality itself. We actually think in ways that are sensible in the low-tech contexts in which we spend most of our lives, but fail to take advantage of the powerful tools of reasoning we’ve discovered over the millennia: logic, critical thinking, probability, correlation and causation, and optimal ways to update beliefs and commit to choices individually and with others. These tools are not a standard part of our education - but they should be.
SUPPORT THE PODCAST
If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.
www.skeptic.com/donate/
SPONSORS
This episode is sponsored by WONDRIUM and Oregon State University (OSU).
WONDRIUM:
wondrium.com/shermer
OSU
leadership.oregonstate.edu/pr...
#michaelshermer
#stevenpinker
#skeptic
Listen to The Michael Shermer Show via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, and TuneIn.
www.skeptic.com/michael-sherm... 
Наука
Mr Pinker transformed my entire societal perspective. Thank you for such a wonderful conversation!
Discussion starts at 9:23
I look forward to listening to this. I am currently teaching behavioural economics in my economics course. I have come to the thinking that what the behavioural economists have claimed, over classical economics, goes for all knowledge/disciplines, not just economics. Biases are everywhere.
Behavioural economics itself has its root under psychology...
Always a pleasure to see/hear Shermer or Pinker speak....but BOTH of them at once? What a treat!
My only criticism is a technical one: the audio is sorely in need of some de-essing. Pinker's sibilance is making my ears bleed. LOL Maybe the sound editor could watch that in the future? (I hope you don't mind the constructive criticism.)
Jesus, audio quality of this is a torture.
Bloody fantastic conversation from both sides. Another combination could not have done this so well. I will listen to it again and perhaps ágain.
So refreshing to get away from politicisation of any subject as well.
I think Daniel Dennett's degree's of freedom hits it on the nose. It's my favorite way to think about free will.
Thanks for putting this together.
That was great, thank you!
I really appreciate these interviews. Thanks
Damn, didn't know Pinker had published a new book. Interestingly enough, David Deutsch (notably quoted by Pinker in the epigraph in _Enlightment Now!_ ) said his next book will be titled _Irrationality._
David Deutsch books are hard to get through. His worldview takes some work to understand
@@sulljoh1,
I agree, most of the stuff is hard. But his chapters on epistemology are very accessible.
@@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy I think I got it eventually ☺ but I had to go through several "The Beginning of Infinity" chapters 2-3 times lol
@@sulljoh1 I have a physics background and maybe why Deutsch's worldview is second nature to me. I read The Fabric of Reality (1996) first and is a harder book than his 2011 The Beginning of Infinity so definitely worth reading that very carefully and some chapters need to be reread two or in my case three times. And I doubt that I'll ever understand more than half of his time travel chapter!
That’s correct. I am eager to learn more about David’s book, but I don’t think there is a publishing date
I strongly recommend Prof Pinker's book "Rationality. It is fascinating, educational and entertaining.
One of your best conversations!
You're back to interviewing skeptics. Good 👍
Not to mention man with reason and logic, unlike the previous guest.
I didn't want to say it explicitly, but yeah 😬
Intellectual athleticism is a wonderful gift.
This is the best Steven Pinker interview ever. The questions are unpredictable yet relevant and interesting.
A great conversation of two great minds. Thanks to both of them.
sound quality could have been better-
No reason why the sound can't be better, do it.
The sound is messed up. :(
Seems ok now?
@@jackballjohnson3468 try 23:08 for example and tell me it's OK
@@drstrangelove09 sounds fine to me, what are you hearing on your end? audio distortion?
@@jackballjohnson3468 I think you are a troll
@@drstrangelove09 not a troll, genuinely trying to help you out here Dr. If your audio is messed up, maybe it’s your connection?
A Great conversation!
I just presented to CEOs near SNA and always recommend your pod cast as my favorite. This is a shinning example supporting my opinion of your work
Audio brought to you by Styrofoam cup and string... but the points are still clearer than most could make. Pinker is truly brilliant.
What is the name of the guy Steven mentions on 1:35:17? Could find any of these programs.
2 of my favorite guys ! Excellent talk. D.A. J.D. NYC
One of the greatest mind Steven Pinkrr
Great to see people having in person conversations again. Fantastic discussion!
Yes, especially when it is two friends having a chat.
Steven Pinker; a truly excellent mind.
9:22 for our Steven
Great conversation, thank you Michael shermer and Stephen Pinker.
A great conversation. I still find it odd that I can give only one thumb up- don't most of us have two?
You are misunderstaning the hand gesture. It is not a thumbs up, it is a hand that is jerking off.
Thanks
Does anyone know how to spell the name of the person Steven mentions at 1hr 35 mins and 24 seconds? Is it Carrie Moorwich?
Watched all of it
While I won't go as far as some other commenters have went, yes the sound needs improvement. It sounds like you're both talking in a cave. That said, I can still hear you both and listen without it being a huge problem. 🙂
It's bad
Sounds like the engineer slapped a bandpass filter on the mix, probably to get rid of another sound in the background, thus creating a strange compression in the mid frequencies. And depending on your sound system, this can make the experience almost painful. A shame, especially for a Pinker interview.
Your sound system's too good.
Sound technician didn't do any favor to Steve in this one...🥴
I dont have a credit card, theres no way to get the free trial at Wrondium w/o one right?
A recent study published in PNAS indicates mathematics learnedness, as long as it's learned before the postgraduate phase, dictates levels of neurotransmitter activity associated with self-control. AI adapted tutoring could help alleviate this chronic societal stress. Self-controlled is certainly not overrated.
Link?
People were not lying about the sound quality. Couldn't be improved in post? I'm thinking perhaps this is some settings or rendering issue, and the original audio is actually quite clear. Mr shermer, if you have the means to correct and re-upload, please do. Pinker is a heavyweight intellectual and there will be plenty of demand for this interview over time
Amazing book
Fascinating
Super cool !
first yeah, my fav author :) what about hofstadter too?
Is the audio odd for anyone else?
I was skeptical of Michael early on due to his stated libertarian leanings, but I now consider him one of the great teachers of rationality in our time.
I read the book and relearned some facts about logic and probability I had forgotten. I was hoping to learn how to convince someone they are not being rational. In addition, I still haven't learned how to keep my blood from boiling when I hear someone explaining why the vaccines aren't really vaccine and why they are so dangerous.
Great podcast and great conversation!
I find that people who have strongly held irrational beliefs learned them from people they trust and have held these beliefs for a long time... even generational beliefs. It is nearly impossible to make an argument that will change their beliefs. Only time and their own level of continuous curiosity can change them. Change is anathema for most people.
What is the reason why the Covid vaccines ARE vaccines, despite not preventing transmission?
@@divinegon4671They reduce transmission, which is an extraordinary gift.
I remember a child who rejected a spoonful of ice cream because they desired to have the whole bowl full.
@@PartlySunny74 CDC states that they do not prevent transmission.
Besides being a brilliant person Steven Pinker has amazing hair.
Politics is the means by which society decides upon what is the proper use of socially sanctioned initiatory violence. While there are many things free people *should* do,... what *must* free people do,... as in literally do this or you will be forced to do so with the proviso that if you resist you may be killed.
Consider the following as a starting social contract between free people that is a work in progress.
*The Anarchist's Constitution*
1. *_There is no Sovereign Immunity._* Any Person (or Persons) who commits force, fraud, or trespass against any other Person’s life, body, or property is liable for restitution to repair the victim to their original condition.
2. *_The Right to be left alone is Absolute, subject only to the enforcement of the first rule._* Any Person (or Persons) may deny the use of their life, body, or property to anyone else without any necessity to justify the reasons for their denial.
3. There are no exceptions to these 4 rules.
4. These rules being observed,… do whatever you will.
Remember,… any additional positive duties imposed necessarily imply the state’s right, even duty, to kill anyone who does not comply.
Is the only positive duty that of _if you break it, you must fix it_ sufficient,... or might there need to be more such positive duties. I am basically asking what unchosen, positive duties would all free people *have to observe* always,... even in an anarcho-capitalist libertopia. Rather than considering a contract between the government and a free people,... I am considering a contract between all free peoples with each other and regardless of individual consent. How can it be a contract,... regardless of individual consent,... you may ask? I think of it as the political equivalent of the necessity of all mathematics having to rely upon the use of axioms,... statements that are taken as self-evidently true requiring no further effort to prove. Anarcho-capitalists talk of rules without rulers. Okay,... so I am asking, what are these rules,.. how do we arrive at a consensus of what these rules are,... and what happens to those who dissent from these rules?
I am trying to start projects where anyone participating can submit a peer to peer social contract,.. similar to the way the internet itself works so well. Forget governments for a moment. Think specifically in terms of what positive, affirmative duties do we have towards each other. While there are many things free people *_should_* do, what *_must_* free people do,... literally,... or risk being killed for not doing so.
I understand Anarcho-Capitalists as believing there should be no unchosen, positive, affirmative duty,... other than everyone has to fix what they break, i.e., restitution. That unless it's consensual, it ain't moral. Minarchists aren't so sure that that is enough.
Do people consent to having to make restitution for the damages they cause others?
What is to be done with those people who refuse to make restitution for their injurious actions to others?
What is to be done with a serial killer, and how is this paid for?
Is it okay not to help an abandoned infant who will otherwise die?
Would it be okay for a mother to just leave a newborn infant?
What do you think should be done about international trafficking in children as sex toys.
What do you want done with adults who do this? Is restitution really enough? Is it satisfying?
At what point should a child be forcibly taken away from their present guardians/custodians?
What positive duties are such guardians/custodians necessarily agreeing to by taking a child from it's biological parents?
What is to be done with someone who is very wealthy and regards paying restitution as merely an inconvenience with no qualms about the injuries he does to others?
Can no violent response be made to those who gratuitously mistreat and harm animals?
Can someone who owns the last breeding pair of an endangered species destroy them at will?
Would it be okay for entrepreneurs to create limited liability corporations in which costs from debts and pollution are socialized and profits are held privately?
Is it just that such shareholders are liable only for the money they have invested, with no liability for any costs that corporation may have involuntarily imposed on innocent third parties?
A very practical question is what duty would citizens have in libertopia to cooperate with those trying to enforce what rules are to exist upon everyone,... even without everyone's individual consent?
How would court orders be issued opening up private information/property to criminal investigators?
Is justice always satisfied simply by paying restitution,... even when someone has violently violated your daughters?
This list is in no sense exhaustive. I consider all of this to comprise various works in progress. What are the minimum set of rules (these rules without rulers ) that even anarcho-capitalists seem to recognize as necessary? How do we arrive at such a consensus? What happens to those who dissent?
Again, politics is the means by which society decides upon what is the proper use of socially sanctioned initiatory violence. This is unavoidable, even in libertopia. Just curious, but would you hold that *The Anarchist's Constitution* is sufficient for a functioning free society. Can you really not think of various instances where even free people would have to submit, regardless of their individual wishes?
And please remember, I would be just as happy to learn more from this debate, but where Libertarians only see violence as a means to protect value and not as a means to create value, I am now asking, in all good will,... is this really necessarily so? *Because certainly we are alone in believing this to the extent that we do.*
Does the truth derive from authority or
Does authority derive from the truth?
Does respect flow more from admiration or from fear?
Is it easier to effectively organize people using voluntary association or threats of violence?
If it is wrong for the strong to exploit the weak,... how is it not wrong for the weak to exploit the strong also?
*_I wish men to be free, as much from mobs as kings, from you as me._*
~ Lord Byron, 1788-1824
I recently submitted the above to Walter Block, author of *_Defending the Undefendable,_* and he responded with...
*Dear David:*
*In my humble opinion, there are NO positive duties, only negative ones.*
*You ask: Is the only positive duty that of if you break it, you must fix it sufficient.*
*I think that’s a NEGATIVE duty. It’s part and parcel of the negative duty not to violate the non aggression principle.*
*Once we let the cloven hoof of positive duties into the tent, there’s no stopping them. Soon, we’ll have a positive duty to feed other people, not discriminate against them, who knows what else.*
*Best regards,*
*Walter*
Basically Libertarians seem to be mostly concerned with avoiding sins of commission while Progressives seem to be mostly concerned with avoiding sins of omission.
Before I tell you how I responded, I would appreciate your thoughts and comments. I am worried that I may have been guilty of falling into the following error.
*_[W]hen a group of people make something sacred, the members of the cult lose the ability to think clearly about it. Morality binds and blinds._*
~ Jonathan Haidt, _The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion_
By my love of Liberty, I don't want to be either binded nor blinded by that love. But I want to know if it is possible to come up with a fairly universal set of rules for how socially sanctioned initiatory violence is to be used and restrained. I hope I will eventually succeed. I fear I may instead be painfully missing my objective. Consider also,...
*_If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself._*
~ James Madison
*_I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it._*
~ Judge Learned Hand
*_In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written._*
~ Ron Paul
Consider the life & death (literally) importance of having these questions answered, whatever those answers may be. This reminds me somewhat of how mixed the reception was when Kurt Gödel delivered his _Essential Incompleteness Theorem_ to the somewhat bewildered and bemused mathematical community in 1931. I hope (but know I must not insist) that answers can be found to such questions,.. or else I fear the worse for the world at large. Perhaps that fear is where I make my greatest error.
_While Liberty is never _*_Utopian,_*_ it is always _*_Melioristic,_* but that can *never* be good enough for the _left,_ and so the world *_burns!!?_*
To anyone who is interested,.. leave your thoughts and comments, *please.*
Very interesting. Many US Citizens care more for comfort than freedom.
@@Douglas_Gillette *_The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe._*
~ H.L. Mencken
*_The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth._*
~ H.L. Mencken
*_[The average man] is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty,... and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies._*
~ H.L. Mencken
*_The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth._*
~ H.L. Mencken
*_Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong._*
~ H.L. Mencken
*_All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them._*
~ H.L. Mencken
*_The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on 'I am not too sure'._*
~ H.L. Mencken
*_The public, with its mob yearning to be instructed, edified and pulled by the nose, demands certainties; it must be told definitely and a bit raucously that this is true and that is false. But there are no certainties._*
~ H. L. Mencken
*_A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker._*
~ H.L. Mencken
*_For every complicated problem there is a solution that is simple, direct, understandable and wrong._*
~ H.L. Mencken
*_The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary._*
~ H. L. Mencken
*_The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair._*
~ H. L. Mencken
*_If, after I depart this vale, you ever remember me and have thought to please my ghost, forgive some sinner and wink your eye at some homely girl._*
~ H.L. Mencken, epitaph
So,... just curious,.. but what unchosen, positive, affirmative duties do you believe all free people's must observe for a free society to actually be able to function in practice?
RE: Shermer's example about Odyssean self-control about the cookies... the obvious question is What is it about Shermer that he would choose to exert this self-control while someone else wouldn't? Obviously it all boils down to things that aren't in Shermer's control, whether it's ideas about self-control that he happened to be exposed to, or the likelihood that he would follow through, or whatever... We can admit that agents make choices without pretending that Shermer's "I" is a magical being, unentangled from the same causal stream of the universe that makes rocks tumble down cliffs on Mars or leaves rustle in the wind. Again, an "agent with free will" is a perfectly valid conceptual construct (just like a tree or mountain is a construct), but magic is not required.
Curious how you both hedge against the tendency that you mentioned for people to be hard to convince if their livelihood (or respect among peers) depends on those beliefs. You both seem to enjoy each other approval and I’m curious how that human emotional need affects even the most intellectual circles.
I'm spoiled for choice, and thankful for that, because I know this would be stimulating to listen to, but can't get past the bad audio, so I'll watch something else. Still, appreciate the discussion.
Hopefully AI will be able to "restore" this one to listenable status in the near future. Unfortunately it sounds like whoever edited the video dumped the audio track into audacity and set the noise reduction absurdly high before publishing. So at least it's a solvable problem.
calling yourself rational doesn't make you rational
when a book about Virgin Islands?
About the abortion issue and what is the end goal. Say the end goal is fewer abortions (because making something illegal doesn't stop it from happening). Then the way to go, as so far as the data points out, is to legalize it.
Awesome getting to listen to 2 patients with TDS. Actually that's a hard pass.
TDS in intellectuals is a class based phenomenon.
Due to their socioeconomically privileged status they fail to bother to understand what could bring so many working class Americans (shafted by neoliberalism) to vote for a conman such as Trump as opposed to a conman such as Biden.
"Skeptic" that's not skeptical about elections, and considers anyone who questions a crazy conspiracy theorist? It's a hard pass for me too. This channel name should be "Willful Ignorance" with such lack of skepticism, let alone critical thinking. I'm no Trump supporter and consider him as just another conman, who wants to take the pie of the worse conmen, but evidence is clear that he was cheated out of the office by the big ol' cons. These so called intellectuals revealed themselves to be pompous cowards who are blinded by their own moral superiority.
@@a.c.7302 In a previous podcast Shermer, mirroring his guest's TDS, equated Victor Orbāns Hungary with North Korea. Willful ignorance indeed.
@@twntwrs Perhaps "Willful Ignorance" is too generous for these self-righteous quasi-intellectuals. "Deranged Delusions" is more like it. No matter what people think of Trump, no one can deny the fact that he revealed the fraud of the ruling power of both parties. I don't take anyone seriously who shows TDS, and pro-vax mandate stance, including Trump. I stopped listening to Douglas Murray and Jordan B Peterson a while ago because they're either cowards or liars.
At 14:25 I think I heard the argument to get vaccinated.
Dr you sound bit tired, i hope you are keeping well.
It’s interesting that the discussion on abortion is not in the book which presents Peter Singer as a pro-animal rights utilitarian with two quotes from him at the head of chapters. But Singer argues in favor of infanticide. This si not the only bind soot of the book: The final chapter tries to present the left as the rational side that implements progress but all the exemples of thinking in the mythology zone given in the book are on the right. But what about the left’s mythology zone that would include, say, systemic racism, transgender ideology, and other woke things mentioned in this conversation? Here, Pinker argues that scientists should avoid presenting themselves as being leftists in order to maintain trust ( but shouldn’t we know they are of the left as a prior ?). But, in his book, he only mentions exemples of mythology zone thinking on the right (fair enough ) but none on the left. So isn’t he doing exactly what he says scientists should not be doing?
Awesome interview, but toxic comments. Sound is not that bad, they can’t do all interviews in a hq studio.
Findings of the JFK records review board: ruclips.net/video/WrVyOYsx81k/видео.html
Morality is both objective and subjective. It's subjective in you cannot tell someone what they SHOULD value. A person's values are their own and completely subjective. BUT you can find out scientifically the best way to optimise a person's values. As a whole we can, mostly, agree on some core values. But we will never agree on all values. If most of us want to agree that our goal is human well-being, we can find an objective way to work towards that. But not everyone will even agree that this should be the goal. And those who do agree will still hold many differing values...and the values of others will need to be respected as we work towards our common goals.
*Religious extremists could care less about human flourishing btw.
Wish theyd convince 12 step program enforcers to stop
Michael Shermer - I love and have followed your work for years, but why is it you still have never heard of Robert Sapolsky? He routinely lectures on the work of Robert Axelrod who shows mathematically that basic moral behavior arises in all animals necessarily - including amoebas (for example). You never account for these facts in your representation of morality.
Good conversation, bad sound quality.
I wonder if Pinker actually used trigonometry or just googled a triangle calculator.
Thank you for not straw-manning the moral argument for pro-life.
"Everyone is pro-choice. Unless you are making as many babies as you can for as long as you can, you are choosing to deny life."
Violence has gone down, but its severity has gone up. Ie, you can kill or hurt more people in a shorter amount of time.
Great interview but disappointed to hear coddling of the Right at the end in the discussion of climate science.
🧡💛💚
It's great to see people very committed to careful analysis and following evidence still committed to the idea climate science is reliable. You can just see Freeman Dyson's ghost hovering in the background shaking his head. ;))
14:43
"Lean right"... leans left.
Yep, the point being the right is factually incorrect about human nature, & implying progressives have a better handle on it…subtle shade
@@chemquests Yeah, I don´t think that was what that was about
@@chemquests But if you want to debate politics, that is a nice spin on it. Although I don´t really agree, or disagree. I just don´t care to argue.
@@benjaminandersson2572 You can, but be prepared to accept you're wrong.
@@SuhaibZafar I don´t know what you are referring to?
Steven Pinker
45:49
Good day, I was wondering if you would be willing to debate on the topic of, whether or not, Christianity is true on the Modern Day Debate youtube channel? The host of that channel is willing but he is searching for an atheist who is "game" and who would accept the challenge. Would you be that person? Finally, if I lose the debate, I will become an atheist.
Why did you not develop the debate about Trans issues, Shermer raised it then silence!!
Its quite a third rail at this point. Play the game the way the establishment wants or your channel is kaput.
Very Smart People.
LOL.
Struggling to hear, can't watch.
"Convo"?
Their one-sided bias is just disappointing. And few years ago I saw them as the rational ones.
Shermer has had scores of podcasts since then so his lack of skepticism is much more apparent now. Pinker's lack of skepticism is clearer by his new book and recent interviews.
@@aaronclarke7732 Both Shermer (on this show and many others) and Pinker strawman climate change by always presenting it as Pinker did here: "denying climate change" without a peep about their academic friends on the left screaming that we are headed to the end of human existence by 2035, 2050, etc despite no evidence of this in the IPCC reports. Shermer won't interview physicist Stephen Koonin who has published on climate change and wrote the book "Unsettled" about it. Then again, Shermer and Pinker have no science training so that may be part of it.
@@aaronclarke7732 It says nothing of the sort. Read the science sections, which is 95% of the report, not the political executive summary.
@@aaronclarke7732 Just like Pinker, you have no science background or science curiosity.
@@aaronclarke7732 Strawman after strawman....
Ah, the bias bias. It reminds me of the fallacy fallacy. Just because there is a flaw in your reasoning doesn't mean you are wrong.
So he knows his hypothesis is a might be and then used it as the only solution
Universal realism is a belief
If you do not want a multiverse you better have a God and the multiverse is infinite and predicts an infinite number of Gods...we believe in less universes than you
Michael, what do you see in the "Mr Deity" guy? The guy is terrible. I posted a comment to one of his vide that was not terrible and conformed to the principles of critical thinking and he tore into me, even called me unjustified names... and I kept trying to reason with him and he just persisted in behaving like a piece of crap. Now, he "helped" you with this video and it ended up with the sound messed up.
I believe you didn't refer to Sam's free will argument accurately. Also, I believe we shouldn't confuse the usefulness of free-will in functioning of the society with the truth of it. I believe Sam is just being honest about free-will but he never suggest we can just do anything and say we didn't have free will. reasonable punishment corresponding to the degree of wrongdoing is necessary as a deterrent for the brain.
@ 1:10:25 I wish Harris and Dawkins would listen to this and stop saying stupid shit, like the killer has a defective brain circuit. Murder and other crimes are completely rational (maybe watch The Wire?) and knowledge of likely repercussions will feed back into the decision-making function, leading to more would-be killers not killing. If you like determinism, just recognize a policy of punishment causes not killing. No free will required.
I can’t afford to waste a minute of my personal treasure, given to me by #universe (🌎infected by bipedal mammals (compulsive #addiction to delusional thinking +chronic refusal of #truth #IamBogoslowsky🦁🤴
Can't they afford microphones?
War is good for nothing? Pinker hasn't heard of Haliburton and the other "defense" contractors?
Synestisia is more interesting
Another way of thinking about belief is the idea that one *hopes* such and such is true, not being able to scientifically prove it (because how would it be?), just as many atheists admit they cannot prove God’s non-existence, but nonetheless hope that it isn’t true (because wow he sounds terrible, yadda yadda).
You seem to confuse conservatives with libertarians-light. Like leftists, we are willing to abide collective enforcement of some behavior taboos but we prefer tested tradition and established convention to the simplistic conceits of coercive utopians.
Defining acceptance of homosexuality, etc. as some sort of heroic progress in inclusivity is value judgement. I see it as defining deviance down.
How can it be plausible that anyone with a brain isn’t familiar with or have “access” to birth control? It’s basically free across the country. Besides, a good number of women who have unplanned pregnancies are educated and well off. Your premise is weak on this one.
I suppose it could be possible to ignore Mr. Pinkers constant smacking of his lips if it wasn't brought to ones attention.
Interesting how the content of what he says tends to take over, especially when you start to realise the implications of so many of the points he makes
The Jews who don’t accept Christ are like everyone having many many reasons/influences for accepting or rejecting ideas. Even the most rational human has preferences, bias, etc. etc.
Great scientists, poor philosophers.
I have only made it to the 50 minute mark. Some ideas of social progress do seem concrete chattel slavery is not likely to make a return. However how society treats homosexuality appears cyclical in history, in Ancient Greece there was a military unit of voluntary homosexual pairs in Thebes, an honored and effective fighting force, another would be Berlin in the 1920, including the head of the SA. The human defect that so often attacks homosexuals, is the need to seek a scapegoat. Scapegoating is simply called cancel culture in today’s world.
Even in ancient Greece, when homosexuality seemed ubiquitous, gay relationships were viewed with disapproval. Disease and death in war created a constant threat of depopulation. Those gay regiments that you imagine had to, at some time, disband to go home to families and procreate the soldiers for later days.
I know you are a person that has to investigate the evidence first and r make your deacons based on the path the truth leads to...well done but it is now time to cross back to the right side Brah..just saying
"If we legalize abortion children could be seen as a burden." "Has any state instituted infanticide, no." The number one reason for abortions is the inability to care for the child, which means it is a BURDEN. Virginia attempted to pass a law that would allow after birth abortions, otherwise known as INFANTICIDE.
Sort out the damn audio
Rationality is OK in small doses
🐋
"The mind is the product of natural selection". That is a faith claim, not the product of reason. One a separate note...would love to see a discussion between SP and Jordan Peterson.
I don't know enough of Pinker to know if he misspoke here. On the face of it he is wrong. "The BRAIN is a product of natural selection" would be accurate. The mind is not determined.
@@matthewstroud4294 Agreed. But I'm not even so certain we can speak of Natural Selection with a great degree of confidence either.
Steven Pinker has a discussion with Jordan Peterson from 2019, you can easly find it by looking "Steven Pinker: Progress, Despite Everything".
What a waste of an interview. The sound tech guy should fired and money refunded back to Michael.
Seriously disappointing, a great guest but an almost unlistenable interview.
Everybody so sensitive these days. The sound is not great but whatever. I can still hear them fine.
@@nabormendonca5742 when this is part of your livelihood and you do this professionally and you hire people to do it right and fail, that shouldn’t be just dismissed. Michael expects a good product to his audience and someone robbed him of that. I would be pretty pissed off if I were Michael. This is a business and audio IS the main part of it in communication to his audience.
If you listen with headphones it is fine.
Long term communist