POPULARITY
7 episodes with Pinker
9 episodes with Pinker
3 episodes with Pinker
6 episodes with Pinker
13 episodes with Pinker
5 episodes with Pinker
4 episodes with Pinker
5 episodes with Pinker
3 episodes with Pinker
10 episodes with Pinker
2 episodes with Pinker
2 episodes with Pinker
5 episodes with Pinker
5 episodes with Pinker
4 episodes with Pinker
2 episodes with Pinker
2 episodes with Pinker
3 episodes with Pinker
Welcome to Episode 144 (Part I of II), where Richard Dawkins interviews Steven Pinker on the past and future of humanity. This is a live recording from our recent show – The Future of Humanity – held on 3 June 2025 at London's Royal Institution Theatre. The event was a conversation between psychologist Steven Pinker and biologist Richard Dawkins – both previous guests on The Panpsycast – exploring the evolution of human beings and the challenges we face in the future. Richard leads the discussion, questioning Steve about his extensive catalogue of books and his contributions to psychology, sociology, and evolutionary theory. They focus a lot on the past but, eventually, get on to the future. It's a brilliant exchange, covering a wide range of topics and packed with some of Pinker's most important insights. The first part of this podcast special is their free-flowing conversation; the second is a Q&A with the audience, hosted by Jack. Thank you to everyone who came along and made the show possible. Without further ado, here's the audio from our live show – we hope you enjoy the conversation. Links Steven Pinker, Website Richard Dawkins, Website
Steve Fleming is a professor in psychology at University College London. I invited Steve to talk about his work on meta-cognition, but we ended up spending the entire episode talking about lab culture, starting a lab, applying for funding, Steve's background in music, and what drew him to do cognitive neuroscience. There's even a tiny discussion about consciousness research at the end.BJKS Podcast is a podcast about neuroscience, psychology, and anything vaguely related, hosted by Benjamin James Kuper-Smith.Support the show: https://geni.us/bjks-patreonTimestamps0:00:00: Steve ran his lab in London from Croatia for a few years 0:23:57: Lessons as a PI: students and postdocs are adults and will figure it out0:28:45: Learning more skills as a postdoc vs. starting a lab0:41:13: Contacting departments to apply for grants0:52:19: Steve's background in music1:07:13: What drew Steve to cognitive science? A brief discussion of the future of consciousness research1:27:23: A book or paper more people should read1:33:02: Something Steve wishes he'd learnt sooner1:38:16: Advice for PhD students/postdocsPodcast linksWebsite: https://geni.us/bjks-podBlueSky: https://geni.us/pod-bskySteve's linksWebsite: https://geni.us/sfleming-webGoogle Scholar: https://geni.us/fleming-scholarBlueSky: https://geni.us/fleming-bskyBen's linksWebsite: https://geni.us/bjks-webGoogle Scholar: https://geni.us/bjks-scholarBlueSky: https://geni.us/bjks-bskyReferences and linksFIL at UCL: https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/ERC Starting Grant: https://erc.europa.eu/apply-grant/starting-grantWellcome Trust Early-Career Award (without strict time restrictions): https://wellcome.org/research-funding/schemes/wellcome-early-career-awardsExample paper by Josh Mcdermott on music: McDermott, Schultz, Undurraga & Godoy (2016). Indifference to dissonance in native Amazonians reveals cultural variation in music perception. Nature.Carter (2002). Consciousness.Chalmers (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of consciousness studies.Dehaene, Al Roumi, Lakretz, Planton & Sablé-Meyer (2022). Symbols and mental programs: a hypothesis about human singularity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences.Isaacson (2021). The code breaker.Marr (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information.Pinker (1997). How the mind works.Tononi (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC neuroscience.
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comClaire Lehmann is a journalist and publisher. In 2015, after leaving academia, she founded the online magazine Quillette, where she is still editor-in-chief. She's also a newspaper columnist for The Australian.For two clips of our convo — on how journalists shouldn't be too friendly with one another, and how postmodernism takes the joy out of literature — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: a modest upbringing in Adelaide; her hippie parents; their small-c conservatism; her many working-class jobs; ADHD; aspiring to be a Shakespeare scholar; enjoying Foucault … at first; her “great disillusionment” with pomo theory; the impenetrable prose of Butler; the great Germaine Greer; praising Camille Paglia; evolutionary psychology; Wright's The Moral Animal and Pinker's The Blank Slate; Claire switching to forensic psychology after an abusive relationship; the TV show Adolescence; getting hired by the Sydney Morning Herald to write op-eds — her first on marriage equality; Bush's federal amendment; competition among women; tribalism and mass migration; soaring housing costs in Australia; rising populism in the West; creating Quillette; the IDW; being anti-anti-Trump; audience capture; Islamism and Charlie Hebdo; Covid; critical Trump theory; tariffs; reflexive anti-elitism; Joe Rogan; Almost Famous; Orwell; Spinoza; Oakeshott; Fukuyama and boredom; tech billionaires on Inauguration Day; the sycophants of Trump 2.0; and X as a state propaganda platform.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Next week: David Graham on Project 2025. After that: Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Robert Merry on President McKinley, Walter Isaacson on Ben Franklin, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.
Send us a textMike gushes about this episode. The music is on point and the mood is dark. The two discuss Pinker's ability, the pieces of the case and the superb approach to this monster-of-the-week.JOIN OUR SOCIALS!magusmediaproductions.netwww.facebook.com/groups/thisisnothappeningpod/ @TINHXFilesPodCONTACT US!tinhxfp@gmail.com
Walker, Niels www.deutschlandfunk.de, Tag für Tag
For millions of years, evidence suggests that humans lived in relatively equal societies, where food acquisition and child raising were shared activities among community members both men and women, together. It is apparent that our environments of evolutionary adaptation, selected for humans with evermore prosocial traits. Domination and competition were minimized in favor of collaboration and partnerships of mutual aid. The idea that any human was superior to another would have been an absurdity. Contemporary forager societies also exhibit collective regulation of resources and power, diminishing anyone who may try to take more than their fair share or exhibit dominance over others. Only within that last 10,000 years or so, does the evidence show that a small number of societies turned to systems of domination, who then conquered the world and created hierarchies of rank, class, and everything else. Rewilding is an endeavor to live more closely to how we evolved to live, and in order to do so we must dismantle the mismatched environment that these dominating societies have created. How and when did this switch to domination happen, why did it happen, and is it possible to work our way back to egalitarianism? These are central questions to the rewilding movement, and they also happen to be the life's work of anthropologist Douglas Fry, who has come on the podcast to discuss this with me. Douglas P. Fry is a researcher at AC4 at Columbia University and Prof Emeritus at University of North Carolina at Greensboro. He earned his doctorate in anthropology from Indiana University in 1986. Dr. Fry has written extensively on aggression, conflict resolution, and war and peace. He is currently researching how clusters of neighboring societies, peace systems, manage to live without war. He has authored countless academic journal articles on the subjects as has written many books, such as Beyond War and The Human Potential for Peace, as well as serving as co-editor of Keeping the Peace: Conflict Resolution and Peaceful Societies Around the World and Cultural Variation in Conflict Resolution: Alternatives to Violence. His most recent book, Nurturing Our Humanity, is co-authored with Riane Eisler. Eisler and Fry argue that the path to human survival and well-being in the 21st century hinges on our human capacities to cooperate and promote social equality, including gender equality.Notes:Douglas Fry UNC Greensboro Faculty PageDouglas Fry @ Research GateNurturing Our Humanity at Bookshop.orgSustaining Peace ProjectSocieties within peace systems avoid war and build positive intergroup relationshipsMentions:Brian Ferguson's “Pinker's List: Exaggerating Prehistoric Mortality”The Chalice and the Blade by Riane EislerHierarchy in the Forest by Christopher BoehmBringing Down a DictatorBlueprint for RevolutionGlobal Nonviolent Action DatabaseWhy Civil Resistance Works by Erica ChenowethSupport the show
Lets talk about Looney Tunes, Actually@OddcastN@whatanoddcastOddcast Network- Youtube
Harry sits down with Steven Pinker, who wears many intellectual hats, all well: linguist, psychologist, political philosopher, historian, and social critic, for starters. After some brief discussion of his childhood and background, they dive into Pinker's best-selling “The Better Angels of Our Nature,” (Bill Gates's favorite book at the time), “Enlightenment Now,” and Rationality” (Bill Gates's new favorite book). In those works, Pinker lay out an argument that by and large, in fits and starts, society is advancing incrementally in health, safety, knowledge, and other key benchmarks of Enlightenment values. The two also touch on Pinker's strong if idiosyncratic views about writing (he rejects much of modern pedantry about correct usage); his original Promethean work in linguistics; and his views about certain human cognitive biases. A wide-ranging and provocative discussion with one of the great public intellectuals of our time.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
On this episode, host Rockne Roll talks with Jewish Federation of Greater Portland Volunteer Coordinator Merit Pinker. They discuss the centrality of volunteerism to both Jewish values and to Pinker's own personal experience, as well as some new opportunities to volunteer within the Jewish community here in Portland.Want to get involved? Complete the Federation's Volunteer Interest Form to get started!
Spero vi piaccia!!! Sono in ansia lol★ SOCIAL ★Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/4iexis/ Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/4lexis/ Email: chahaotic@gmail.comSe vuoi offrirmi un caffè e supportare il canale: https://ko-fi.com/4lexis Il canale lo trovi anche qui: https://www.youtube.com/@ChahaoticFONTI - La bibliografia purtroppo non entra tutta quindi se volete un articolo in particolare, scrivetemi e ve lo mando :)- Baym, N.K. (2015) ‘Social Media and the Struggle for Society', Social Media + Society, 1(1).- Boyle, S. (2024) ‘Is doom scrolling really rotting our brains? The evidence is getting harder to ignore', The Guardian.- Brown, A. (2009) ‘Google isn't making us dumb – or smart. That's the problem', The Guardian.- Cain, M.S. and Mitroff, S.R. (2011) ‘Distractor filtering in media multitaskers', Perception, 40(10), pp. 1183–1192.- Carr, N. (2008) ‘Is Google Making Us Stupid?', The Atlantic.- Cascio, J. (2009) ‘Get Smarter', The Atlantic- Cbkwgl (2022) ‘Bottomless Bowl Experiment and Attention Economy', Project Management and User Experience.- Chayka, K. (2024) ‘The Trump Assassination Attempt Meets the Internet's Brain-Rot Era', The New Yorker.- Clark, A. and Chalmers, D. (1998) ‘The Extended Mind', Analysis, 58(1), pp. 7–19.- Estes, A.C. (2011) ‘Google Is Making Us Stupid and Smart at the Same Time?', The Atlantic.- Firth, J. et al. (2019) ‘The “online brain”: how the Internet may be changing our cognition', World Psychiatry, 18(2), p. 119. - Fleming, A. (2025) ‘All in the mind? The surprising truth about brain rot', The Guardian, 29 January. - Francis, G. (2017) ‘Irresistible: Why We Can't Stop Checking, Scrolling, Clicking and Watching – review', The Guardian.- Greenfield, A. (2017) ‘Rise of the machines: who is the “internet of things” good for?', The Guardian.- Gurwinder (2024) The Intellectual Obesity Crisis. - Heaton, B. (2024) ‘Brain rot' named Oxford Word of the Year 2024, Oxford University Press. - Heller, N. (2024) ‘The Battle for Attention', The New Yorker.- Immerwahr, D. (2025) ‘What if the Attention Crisis Is All a Distraction?', The New Yorker.- ‘Intervista a Maryanne Wolf' (2019) DPU | Diritto Penale e Uomo. - Isaacson, W. (2013) ‘Brain Gain', The New York Times.- Kuss, D.J. and Griffiths, M.D. (2017) ‘Social Networking Sites and Addiction: Ten Lessons Learned', - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(3), p. 311.- Loh, K.K. and Kanai, R. (2014) ‘Higher Media Multi-Tasking Activity Is Associated with Smaller Gray-- Matter Density in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex', PLOS ONE, 9(9), p. e106698. - Media, C. (2010) ‘Our “Deep Reading” Brain: Its Digital Evolution Poses Questions', Nieman Reports.- Moshel, M.L. et al. (2024) ‘Neuropsychological Deficits in Disordered Screen Use Behaviours: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis', Neuropsychology Review, 34(3), pp. 791–822. - Ophir, E., Nass, C. and Wagner, A.D. (2009) ‘Cognitive control in media multitaskers', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), pp. 15583–15587. - Orben, A. (2019) ‘We're told that too much screen time hurts our kids. Where's the evidence?', The Observer.- Paul, A.M. (2013) ‘Reading Literature Makes Us Smarter and Nicer', Time.- Pinker, S. (2010) ‘Opinion | Mind Over Mass Media', The New York Times.- Prior, K.S. (2013) ‘How Reading Makes Us More Human', The Atlantic.- Rajaram, S. and Marsh, E.J. (2019) ‘Cognition in the Internet age: What are the important questions?', Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), pp. 46–49. - Sparrow, B., Liu, J. and Wegner, D.M. (2011) ‘Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips', Science, 333(6043), pp. 776–778.
Vegans have a marketing problem: they're perceived to be annoying, self-righteous, judgmental, and inflexible. Author Matthew Halteman's book Hungry Beautiful Animals is designed to fix that perception and make veganism more appealing and less threatening. Visit his website about Hungry Beautiful Animals. Matthew Halteman and I discuss his book Hungry Beautiful Animals. Here's the timeline of our discussion in case you want to skip to a section. 00:00 Intro 04:30 Marketing Problem? 07:00 Practical Tips 10:00 Kindergarten Values 12:00 Abstract food 16:30 Aspirations 20:40 Fish Watch the Video Book review In his excellent book "The Better Angels of Our Nature," Steven Pinker observed that humanity has become less barbarous with each passing century. Consider the improvements to: - Women's rights - Gay rights - Racism - Slavery - Death penalty - Wars - Prisons Pinker was asked, "What will people in the 22nd century think of us? What are we doing that will seem barbarous and immoral to future humans?" Pinker said (I'm paraphrasing), "The way almost everyone financially supports the barbarous and inhumane treatment of animals by buying and eating animals." True. Today's vegans are like the anti-slavery people 200 years ago: annoying, and everyone wished they would just go away. How can vegans be more inviting? It seems like an all-or-nothing club. This book says, "Relax. You're welcome to join the tribe." Hungry Beautiful Animals is a vibrant and engaging exploration of veganism. The book stands out for its joyful and inclusive approach, aiming to transform the often polarizing topic of veganism into an inviting conversation. Halteman's writing can be too verbose, but it is filled with humor and anecdotes that resonate regardless of one's dietary choices. ### Key Themes - Joy and Kindness: Halteman emphasizes that adopting a vegan lifestyle can be a source of joy rather than a burden. He encourages readers to view veganism as a journey filled with possibilities rather than a strict set of rules that can lead to feelings of shame or guilt. - Personal Stories: The book is rich with anecdotes that illustrate the interconnectedness of all living beings. For instance, Halteman reflects on moments his dog (Gus), who inspired him to write this book. - Community Focus: Halteman invites readers from all backgrounds to join in a collective movement towards kindness and compassion for animals, promoting the idea that everyone is welcome in this exploration of veganism, even if you're not hardcore, full-time. - Practical Guidance: Beyond philosophical discussions, the book provides practical suggestions for leading a more animal-friendly life, including tips on creating pollinator-friendly habitats in one's yard. The book offers profound insights and the ability to provoke thought without condemnation. It is an engaging read that challenges preconceived notions about veganism while fostering a sense of community and shared purpose. Overall, Hungry Beautiful Animals is a book about veganism and an invitation to live more compassionately and joyfully with all beings. VERDICT: 9 out of 10 stars!
Steven Pinker is a Canadian-American cognitive psychologist, linguist, and influential author, and professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. Pinker's research spans psycholinguistics, visual cognition, and the science of human behaviour. He is a proponent of rationality, evidence-based thinking, and the application of evolutionary psychology to understand human nature. Pinker is frequently cited as one of the most influential thinkers of his time.Peter & Kasia engage with Steven for a profound discussion revolving around the themes of global peace and progress in modern times. The conversation references Pinker's books, 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' (2011) and 'Enlightenment Now' (2018), which argue that humanity currently lives in the most peaceful era in history. Further topics include the role of nuclear weapons in maintaining global peace, and the moral and ethical implications of technological advancements like AI.Learn more about Steven Pinker and read his books!Keep up to date with Peter!Website: www.petersinger.infoSubstack: https://boldreasoningwithpetersinger.substack.com/YouTube: www.youtube.com/@peter_singerKeep up to date with Kasia!https://www.facebook.com/katarzyna.delazariradek Executive Producer: Rachel Barrett Audio Producer: Stuart BucklandThanks to our volunteer researchers Hendrik Dahlmeier and Mihika ChechiIf you are enjoying this podcast, consider supporting us over at PATREON Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Mais um episódio de Shutdown, o vosso podcast de negócios e tecnologia em português T-Shirts: https://shutdownpod.com/?p=179 Newsletter: https://shutdown.substack.com Subscrevam, deixem uma review e partilhem Doações: https://ko-fi.com/shutdownpodcast Site: https://shutdownpod.com Links: Pinker: https://cnnportugal.iol.pt/pinker/imt/pinker-e-um-servico-segmentado-e-viola-o-artigo-7-plataforma-tvde-para-mulheres-tem-ate-dia-13-para-esclarecer-imt/20241203/674e2450d34e94b8290829fc Austrália: https://www.reuters.com/technology/australia-passes-social-media-ban-children-under-16-2024-11-28/ Café: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/coffee-prices-plummet-long-liquidation-pressures Intel: https://www.pcguia.pt/2024/12/pat-gelsinger-deixa-o-cargo-de-ceo-da-intel/ Amália: https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/economia/chatgpt-portugues-amalia-tem-um-investimento-previsto-de-55-milhoes-de-euros_n1618386 e https://sicnoticias.pt/especiais/inteligencia-artificial/2024-11-29-chatgpt-portugues-amalia-tem-um-investimento-previsto-de-55me-3ca61211 Modelo espanhol e nórdico: https://sifted.eu/articles/spain-large-language-model-generative-ai e https://www.silo.ai/blog/viking-7b-the-first-open-llm-for-the-nordic-languages
El resfriado no afectó a su habitual energía. El fiscal general del Estado no solamente aplica la ley: es la ley. De ahí la extrema gravedad de que permanezca en el cargo mientras la Guardia Civil haya tenido que registrar su despacho. Cómo se están desarrollando los hechos es tan insólito como los hechos en sí. Y clamó: ¿No podrían habernos ahorrado este espectáculo, puramente tropical? No dejó de lamentar la muerte y el desastre de la gota fría en Valencia, pero lamentó que siempre, en estos casos, aparezca en España el siniestro animalito de la culpa (¡y el de la literatura!). Siempre hay fallos. Son ellos, precisamente, los que ayudan a que no los haya la próxima vez. Por otra parte, pocas veces se habla de lo que sí funcionó que evitó un mayor número de víctimas. Pero en fin, ya se sabe lo que tanto dicen Pinker y él. De Pinker, precisamente, glosó lo que el canadiense escribió para el Times: un recuento pormenorizado que desmiente taxativamente el principal lema de Trump en campaña: «América se está muriendo». Trump o Harris –¡la alcaidesa dice que no puede llamársele Kamala!–: la próxima semana sabremos quién será presidente de los Estados Unidos. Por el momento, es impecable el artículo del dueño de Amazon y del Post para justificar que el periódico no respalde en estas elecciones, y como era su costumbre desde los años setenta, a ningún candidato. Ahora bien, qué importancia tiene ocultar la preferencia política en el editorial, cuando lo verdaderamente importante es el sesgo que delata la información política del Post. Agradeció a David Trueba su columna contra la cocaína, que solo produce frustración, ruina y muerte, y recomendó el documental John Le Carré: Volar en círculos, de Errol Morris. Y fue así que Espada yiró. Bibliografía: «José Gómez, Brand Manager de Joselito: “Cuidamos el bienestar de nuestros cerdos con bellotas de la dehesa y mejoramos la calidad de nuestros procesos gracias al ‘pig data'”», Forbes «Una investigación en 30 países acerca de las creencias sobre la herencia genética», Public Understanding of Science Banda sonora: Y sin embargo te quiero See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Send us a Text Message.Greg Matusky is a passionate student of human communications and how it powers our culture, economy, and future. As CEO of Gregory FCA, one of the 40 largest PR firms in America, he has helped develop the communication skills of hundreds of professionals, providing them with insights from more than 40 years of experience in storytelling, from his beginnings as a magazine article writer to his present role as head of Gregory FCA.A student of Gladwell, Pinker, and Chomsky, he is not afraid to delve into the rabbit holes of linguistics and cognition to uncover the process of human communications and share his discoveries. His most recent interest lies in artificial intelligence and how AI transforms corporate communications and public relations. In that respect, he oversaw the development of one of the first generative AI tools for public relations professionals, Gladwrite, which his team created before OpenAI introduced ChatGPT in November 2022. In early 2023, the team at Gregory FCA launched WriteRelease, a free AI press release creation tool customized to produce more than 70 news release types. Matusky's fascination with AI is driven by a deep desire to allow others to do it digitally in seconds, which took him years to master.Last year, Matusky launched his podcast series, "The Disruption is Now," where he interviews leaders across various industries to explore how AI impacts their fields.This Is PropagandaChallenging marketers' delusions about the cultural impact of our work. A WEBBY winner!Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify The Brandon T. Adams Audio ExperienceWelcome to The Brandon T. Adams Audio Experience, hosted by entrepreneur, investor,...Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the Show.This episode is sponsored by John Guilfoil Public Relations. From crisis communications to website development; visit our website JGPR.net or call 617.993.0003
Steven Pinker is a Canadian-American cognitive psychologist, psycholinguist, popular science author and Harvard College Professor. One of the world's leading authorities on language and the mind, he is an advocate of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind. Pinker has written many books for general audiences including The Blank Slate (2002), Enlightenment Now (2018) and his most recent, Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters - is available here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08WK3JNLT/ Check out more of Steven's work: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B000AQ3GGO/ SPONSOR: Qualia Senolytic. Go to Qualialife.com/TRIG for up to 50% off and use code TRIG at checkout for an additional 15% off. Join our Premium Membership for early access, extended and ad-free content: https://triggernometry.supercast.com OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Music by: Music by: Xentric | info@xentricapc.com | https://www.xentricapc.com/ YouTube: @xentricapc Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: marketing@triggerpod.co.uk Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/#mailinglist Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media: https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry: Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Linguist, noted ‘Pinkerologist' and friend of the show Dr. Caitlin Green (@Caitlinmoriah) joins me to analyze and discuss the Extremely Rational thoughts of one Steven Pinker. In pt 2 we discuss Pinker's constant downplaying of r*pe statistics and the inadequate, cherry-picked sources he uses to support his flawed arguments. —— If you have experienced sexual assault or violence here are some helpful resources: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safe-campuses-bc/what-is-consent https://www.brown.edu/campus-life/health/services/promotion/sexual-health-sex-101-sexual-assault-dating-violence-learn-more-alcohol-other-drugs-learn-more Brown University: Yes, it is possible to establish consent if you and/or your partner(s) have been drinking or using other drugs. Consent cannot be obtained through the use of coercion or force or by taking advantage of the incapacitation of another individual. If anyone is incapacitated for any reason, they cannot give consent. If someone has been using alcohol or other drugs and you are thinking about having any kind of sexual interaction with them, it is your responsibility to check in, ask, and make sure they consent to what is going on. Being intoxicated yourself does not absolve you of the responsibility of obtaining consent. If you are unsure whether you can establish consent, don't have sex. https://endingviolencecanada.org/sexual-assault-centres-crisis-lines-and-support-services/ https://www.wannatalkaboutit.com/ca/sexual-violence/ https://www.rainn.org/international-sexual-assault-resources —— Links: Great thread by Kate Manne which came up in the episode https://x.com/kate_manne/status/1149902823200632833?s=61&t=w7q_ejvwZ_gCFj9WV50Lqw Detailed thread on Pinker's discussion on R*pe in Better Angels of our Nature https://x.com/magi_jay/status/972958282125062144?s=61&t=w7q_ejvwZ_gCFj9WV50Lqw! If you enjoy the show pls consider supporting via patreon.com/nicemangos
This is a public SAMPLE of an upcoming episode. Please subscribe via patreon.com to hear the full episode. Part 2 is available via Patreon.com/nicemangos ——- Linguist, noted ‘Pinkerologist' and friend of the show Dr. Caitlin Green (@Caitlinmoriah) joins me to analyze and discuss the Extremely Rational thoughts of one Steven Pinker. In pt 2 we discuss Pinker's constant downplaying of r*pe statistics and the inadequate, cherry-picked sources he uses to support his flawed arguments. —— If you have experienced sexual assault or violence here are some helpful resources: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safe-campuses-bc/what-is-consent https://www.brown.edu/campus-life/health/services/promotion/sexual-health-sex-101-sexual-assault-dating-violence-learn-more-alcohol-other-drugs-learn-more Brown University: Yes, it is possible to establish consent if you and/or your partner(s) have been drinking or using other drugs. Consent cannot be obtained through the use of coercion or force or by taking advantage of the incapacitation of another individual. If anyone is incapacitated for any reason, they cannot give consent. If someone has been using alcohol or other drugs and you are thinking about having any kind of sexual interaction with them, it is your responsibility to check in, ask, and make sure they consent to what is going on. Being intoxicated yourself does not absolve you of the responsibility of obtaining consent. If you are unsure whether you can establish consent, don't have sex. https://endingviolencecanada.org/sexual-assault-centres-crisis-lines-and-support-services/ https://www.wannatalkaboutit.com/ca/sexual-violence/ https://www.rainn.org/international-sexual-assault-resources —— Links: Great thread by Kate Manne which came up in the episode https://x.com/kate_manne/status/1149902823200632833?s=61&t=w7q_ejvwZ_gCFj9WV50Lqw Detailed thread on Pinker's discussion on R*pe in Better Angels of our Nature https://x.com/magi_jay/status/972958282125062144?s=61&t=w7q_ejvwZ_gCFj9WV50Lqw!
Note for this encore presentation: While much of our discussion centered on Professor Pinker's views on how the world continues to improve while we have trouble believing it, he also goes into details about his concerns about the state of public discourse on college campuses. He and I conducted this interview in June of 2023, several months before the conflict between Hamas and Israel began, and subsequent demonstrations caused huge disruptions on college campuses around the country, including Pinker's own Harvard University. He's since been very active in shaping his school's policy on open speech and debate and whether or not universities should take public positions on political issues that don't directly relate to those schools. It's interesting now to listen to what he had to say about his campus's climate, before it became an issue of press coverage and public debate. In this wide-ranging conversation, renowned author and professor Steven Pinker describes that while he resists being called an “optimist,” as the label doesn't necessarily suit his temperament, his deep dives into historical data have convinced him that the world is indeed getting better and has been on a steady trajectory since the days of the Enlightenment, the subject of one of his many acclaimed books. Dr. Pinker also describes why he believes so many intellectuals resist acknowledging that the world is making progress; and adds, ironically, that self-described “progressives” often have the toughest time with this. He also shares his concerns about the policing of speech on college campuses – including Harvard – and the deleterious effects this has on students' wellbeing. Chapters: 03:30 The World Getting Better Steven Pinker discusses the concept of human progress and how our cognitive abilities allow us to overcome negative impulses. He explains the importance of acknowledging progress despite inherent biases towards negativity. 11:00 Optimism vs. Pessimism Explore Steven Pinker's view on optimism and pessimism, highlighting how his perspective is rooted in data and empirical evidence rather than personal temperament. Understand the societal perception of optimism and pessimism in intellectual circles. 12:07 Glorifying the Past Delve into the tendency to glorify the past and criticize the present. Learn about the societal inclination to equate pessimism with moral seriousness and the impact of historical perspectives on current discourse. 23:01 Criticism and Academic Freedom Steven Pinker addresses concerns about academic freedom and the culture of censorship and intolerance in higher education. Understand the importance of open discourse and challenging dominant orthodoxies for societal progress. 27:33 Campus Climate and Mental Health Pinker describes how campus orientations and cultural shifts impact young people's mental health, leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation. 31:53 Positive Historical Trends Discussing surprising positive historical trends related to violence, environmental improvements, and changing perceptions of war and heroism. 36:18 War and Peaceful Service Exploring the shift from glorifying war to promoting peaceful service as a means to cultivate heroic and altruistic qualities in individuals. 38:50 Spreading Optimism and Data-Driven Progress Pinker offers advice on spreading awareness of positive trends, emphasizing data-driven optimism, acknowledging challenges, and the role of human agency in creating a better world. 40:31 Reflections on War and Optimism Dr. Pinker reflects on the historical glorification of war and the potential for mandatory peaceful service, along with the importance of data-driven optimism in shaping perspectives.
Linguist, noted ‘Pinkerologist' and friend of the show Dr. Caitlin Green joins me to analyze and discuss the Extremely Rational thoughts of one Steven Pinker. In part 1 we discuss hats, gloves, rationality, hypocrisy, Pinker's special brand of ‘positivity P 0rn' and more! Links: Steven Pinker's aid in Jeffrey Epstein's legal defense renews criticism of an increasingly divisive public intellectual. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/07/17/steven-pinkers-aid-jeffrey-epsteins-legal-defense-renews-criticism-increasingly A thread on the ironically named organization FAIR (Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism) - a who's who of some of the most intolerant and racist rightwing hacks around https://x.com/nicemangos/status/1367585945160146947?s=61&t=w7q_ejvwZ_gCFj9WV50Lqw The Harvard Crimson: Pinker is often willing to defend his colleagues — even when it attracts controversy. In 2012, the University of Miami philosopher Colin McGinn was accused of sexual harassment by a graduate student. When the matter became public, Pinker wrote in an open letter that McGinn was a “brilliant and distinguished scholar” and that if the University of Miami pursued disciplinary action against McGinn for “exchanging sexual banter with a graduate student,” it would “put a chill on communication between faculty and graduate students and on the openness and informality on which scholarship depends.” In our conversation, Pinker often brings up “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature,” which, even two decades after its release, illustrates core aspects of his thinking today. The book argues that our individual behaviors — our intelligence, our sociability, our tendencies toward violence — are rooted in our genes, not just the environment in which we are raised. “.. in 2006 Pinker published a favorable review of a scientific paper which argued that Ashkenazi Jews may have evolved to have higher IQs than other racial and ethnic groups.” One of the first academics to be canceled, Pinker says, was E. O. Wilson. Wilson was a biologist and professor of evolutionary biology at Harvard. Today, he is known for two things: his award-winning work on biodiversity and his public branding as a racist. In 1975, Wilson published a book called “Sociobiology: The New Synthesis,” which argues that behaviors result from genes — “very much in the strain of work that I wrote about on human nature,” Pinker says — and stepped into a debate about scientific racism. In his book, Wilson writes that there should be a “discipline of anthropological genetics” to explore whether cultural differences are biological. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/10/27/steven-pinker-scrut/ Pinker currently serves on the E. O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation's board of advisers https://eowilsonfoundation.org/about-us/our-team/ Screenshot, Pinker upset at anti-scientism and historians ‘historicizing' https://x.com/mccormick_ted/status/1182645627169263616?s=61&t=w7q_ejvwZ_gCFj9WV50Lqw Pinker smears anti-genocide students as ‘Pro-Hamas' https://x.com/nicemangos/status/1810472709580570796?s=61&t=w7q_ejvwZ_gCFj9WV50Lqw Pinker's video about how ‘Political Correctness is redpilling America' https://x.com/nicemangos/status/1138497096569540609?s=61&t=w7q_ejvwZ_gCFj9WV50Lqw Pinker Publishes response about associations with Epstein on Jerry Coyne's blog which has also done the Just Asking Questions routine about whether convicted child r*pist Jerry Sandusky was truly guilty or not. https://x.com/nicemangos/status/1150216005114912769?s=61&t=w7q_ejvwZ_gCFj9WV50Lqw —— Pls subscribe via patreon.com/nicemangos to support the show Pt 2 available early to patrons
Is it better to be rational or optimistic? Steven Pinker explains. There is no force in the Universe called progress. But there are plenty of natural forces that seem to only make it harder for us to make progress as a species, such as disease, the laws of entropy, and the dark sides of human nature. So, what pushes humanity forward in the face of all these obstacles? To the psychologist Steven Pinker, the answer is rationality: When people use their reasoning skills and other cognitive abilities to help improve the lives of others, the result is progress. From pseudoscience to religious extremism, irrational beliefs can cause real harm. That's why Pinker argues that society would be better off if more people learned to be more rational. Chapters for Easier Navigation:- 0:00 The bad news: reality 0:39 The good news: rationality 1:26 How rational are we? 3:04 Even Americans, though? (Rationality inequality) 4:45 The pinnacle of human rationality 5:45 How can you teach critical thinking? How? ----------------------------------------------------- About Steven Pinker: Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations. He grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and his PhD from Harvard. Currently Johnstone Professor of Psychology at Harvard, he has also taught at Stanford and MIT. He has won numerous prizes for his research, his teaching, and his nine books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Sense of Style, and Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Go Deeper with Big Think:- ►Become a Big Think Member Get exclusive access to full interviews, early access to new releases, Big Think merch and more ►Get Big Think+ for Business Guide, inspire and accelerate leaders at all levels of your company with the biggest minds in business ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
*This is a public sample of an upcoming episode. Please subscribe via patreon.com to hear the full episode. Part 2 is available via the Premium tiers on Patreon.* —— Linguist, noted ‘Pinkerologist' and friend of the show Dr. Caitlin Green joins me to analyze and discuss the Extremely Rational thoughts of one Steven Pinker. In part 1 we discuss hats, gloves, rationality, hypocrisy, Pinker's special brand of ‘positivity P 0rn' and more! —— Links: Steven Pinker's aid in Jeffrey Epstein's legal defense renews criticism of an increasingly divisive public intellectual. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/07/17/steven-pinkers-aid-jeffrey-epsteins-legal-defense-renews-criticism-increasingly A thread on the ironically named organization FAIR (Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism) - a who's who of some of the most intolerant and racist rightwing hacks around https://x.com/nicemangos/status/1367585945160146947?s=61&t=w7q_ejvwZ_gCFj9WV50Lqw The Harvard Crimson: Pinker is often willing to defend his colleagues — even when it attracts controversy. In 2012, the University of Miami philosopher Colin McGinn was accused of sexual harassment by a graduate student. When the matter became public, Pinker wrote in an open letter that McGinn was a “brilliant and distinguished scholar” and that if the University of Miami pursued disciplinary action against McGinn for “exchanging sexual banter with a graduate student,” it would “put a chill on communication between faculty and graduate students and on the openness and informality on which scholarship depends.” In our conversation, Pinker often brings up “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature,” which, even two decades after its release, illustrates core aspects of his thinking today. The book argues that our individual behaviors — our intelligence, our sociability, our tendencies toward violence — are rooted in our genes, not just the environment in which we are raised. “.. in 2006 Pinker published a favorable review of a scientific paper which argued that Ashkenazi Jews may have evolved to have higher IQs than other racial and ethnic groups.” One of the first academics to be canceled, Pinker says, was E. O. Wilson. Wilson was a biologist and professor of evolutionary biology at Harvard. Today, he is known for two things: his award-winning work on biodiversity and his public branding as a racist. In 1975, Wilson published a book called “Sociobiology: The New Synthesis,” which argues that behaviors result from genes — “very much in the strain of work that I wrote about on human nature,” Pinker says — and stepped into a debate about scientific racism. In his book, Wilson writes that there should be a “discipline of anthropological genetics” to explore whether cultural differences are biological. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/10/27/steven-pinker-scrut/ Pinker currently serves on the E. O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation's board of advisers https://eowilsonfoundation.org/about-us/our-team/ Screenshot, Pinker upset at anti-scientism and historians ‘historicizing' https://x.com/mccormick_ted/status/1182645627169263616?s=61&t=w7q_ejvwZ_gCFj9WV50Lqw Pinker smears anti-genocide students as ‘Pro-Hamas' https://x.com/nicemangos/status/1810472709580570796?s=61&t=w7q_ejvwZ_gCFj9WV50Lqw Pinker's video about how ‘Political Correctness is redpilling America' https://x.com/nicemangos/status/1138497096569540609?s=61&t=w7q_ejvwZ_gCFj9WV50Lqw Pinker Publishes response about associations with Epstein on Jerry Coyne's blog which has also done the Just Asking Questions routine about whether convicted child r*pist Jerry Sandusky was truly guilty or not. https://x.com/nicemangos/status/1150216005114912769?s=61&t=w7q_ejvwZ_gCFj9WV50Lqw
There's a kind of conventional wisdom among broadcasters that an interview has to be adversarial. The interviewer must probe in a critical kind of way. You must have arguments. This was brought home to me some years ago when I had a conversation on stage in London, a very large audience with Steven Pinker, and it went very well. The audience liked it, and the BBC, who weren't there, got wind of it and decided they'd like to have a reprise of it later in the evening, in the News Night programme. So they asked us whether we would do it, and we agreed. Then the BBC producer rang me up and she said to me, “What's the nature of your disagreement with Dr. Pinker?” I said, “Well, I don't think there is a disagreement. I think we agree about most things.” She said, “No disagreement?” The interview was promptly cancelled.That's just an illustration, and it came to mind again when I did an interview with Steve Pinker in Boston, at Harvard. It was part of the programme I did for Channel Four in 1998 called The Genius of Charles Darwin. We had a very long conversation lasting about an hour, I suppose, and we agreed about just about everything. But I think it is illuminating. I think it's one of the best interviews I've ever done. It's two people who pretty much agree about everything we discussed, and it's as though one person was having a conversation with himself. But it's somehow better than that. I think that when you have two people who agree with each other in that kind of way, each one raises the game of the other. Let's see if you agree, listen to this conversation between me and Steve Pinker.
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Abandoning functionalism: Some intuition pumps, published by Alfredo Parra on July 12, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. There seems to be a widely-held view in popular culture that no physicist really understands quantum mechanics. The meme probably gained popularity after Richard Feynman famously stated in a lecture (transcribed in the book "The Character of Physical Law") "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics", though many prominent physicists have expressed a similar sentiment. Anyone aware of the overwhelming success of quantum mechanics will recognize that the seeming lack of understanding of the theory is primarily about how to interpret its ontology, and not about how to do the calculations or run the experiments, which clearly many physicists understand extremely well. But even the ontological confusion is debatable. With the proliferation of interpretations of quantum mechanics - each varying in terms of, among others, which classical intuitions should be abandoned - at least some physicists seem to think that there isn't anything weird or mysterious about the quantum world. So I suspect there are plenty of physicists who would politely disagree that it's not possible to really understand quantum mechanics. Sure, it might take them a few decades of dedicated work in theoretical physics and a certain amount of philosophical sophistication, but there surely are physicists out there who (justifiably) feel like they grok quantum mechanics both technically and philosophically, and who feel deeply satisfied with the frameworks they've adopted. Carlo Rovelli (proponent of the relational interpretation) and Sean Carroll (proponent of the many-worlds interpretation) might be two such people. This article is not about the controversial relationship between quantum mechanics and consciousness. Instead, I think there are some lessons to learn in terms of what it means and feels like to understand a difficult topic and to find satisfying explanations. Maybe you will relate to my own journey. See, for a long time, I thought of consciousness as a fundamentally mysterious aspect of reality that we'd never really understand. How could we? Is there anything meaningful we can say about why consciousness exists, where it comes from, or what it's made of? Well, it took me an embarrassingly long time to just read some books on philosophy of mind, but when I finally did some 10 years ago, I was captivated: What if we think in terms of the functions the brain carries out, like any other computing system? What if the hard problem is just ill-defined? Perhaps philosophical zombies can teach us meaningful things about the nature of consciousness? Wow. Maybe we can make progress on these questions after all! Functionalism in particular - the position that any information system is conscious if it computes the appropriate outputs given some inputs - seemed a particularly promising lens. The floodgates of my curiosity were opened. I devoured as much content as I could on the topic - Dennett, Dehaene, Tononi, Russell, Pinker; I binge-read Brian Tomasik's essays and scoured the EA Forum for any posts discussing consciousness. Maybe we can preserve our minds by uploading their causal structure? Wow, yes! Could sufficiently complex digital computers become conscious? Gosh, scary, but why not? Could video game characters matter morally? I shall follow the evidence wherever it leads me. The train to crazy town had departed, and I wanted to have a front-row seat. Alas, the excitement soon started to dwindle. Somehow, the more I learned about consciousness, the more confused and dissatisfied I felt. Many times in the past I'd learned about a difficult topic (for instance, in physics, computer science, or mathematics) and, sure, the number of questions would mul...
Steven Pinker is a world-renowned cognitive psychologist, and is widely regarded as one of the most important public intellectuals of our time. His work delves into the complexities of cognition, language, and social behavior, and his research offers a window into the fundamental workings of the human mind. Pinker, who is the author of nine books including Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress and Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters, approaches his work with a kind of data-driven optimism about the world that has set him apart from the chorus of doomer voices we hear so much from in our public discourse. Today, we talk to Pinker about why smart people believe stupid things, the psychology of conspiracy theories, free speech and academic freedom, why democracy and enlightenment values are contrary to human nature, the moral panic around AI, and much more. The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through Bookshop.org links. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Aká je rozšírená populárna predstava osvietenstva? V akej pozícii je v podobných zobrazeniach kresťanstvo? A vravia dnes historici o kresťanskom osvietenstve? ----more---- Súvisiace dávky: PD#234: Čo má David Hume proti zázrakom?, http://bit.ly/davka234 PD#171: Akým svetlom svietili francúzski osvietenci?, http://bit.ly/davka171 PD#128: Náboženstvo podľa Kanta, http://bit.ly/davka128 PD#112: Tajná tvár teológa Newtona, http://bit.ly/davka112 Použitá a odporúčaná literatúra: Burson, Lehner (eds.), Enlightenment and Catholicism in Europe, 2014. Harrison, "The Enlightenment of Steven Pinker", 2018. Jacob, The Secular Enlightenment, 2019. Lehner, The Catholic Enlightenment, 2016. Lehner, Printy (eds.), A Companion to the Catholic Enlightenment in Europe, (2010. Matytsin, Edelstein (eds.), Let There Be Enlightenment, 2018. Pinker, Enlightenment Now (2018). *** Baví ťa s nami rozmýšľať? Podpor našu tvorbu priamo na SK1283605207004206791985 alebo cez Patreon, kde Ťa odmeníme aj my.
“We were each put on earth to torment the other,” says cognitive scientist Steven Pinker of Elizabeth Bates, a psychologist who challenged the prevailing theory about how humans acquire language. Bates believed that language emerges from interactions between our brains and our environments, and that we do not have an innate language capacity. To many, that sounds like an innocuous statement. But in making these claims, Bates challenged formidable linguists like Pinker and Noam Chomsky, placing herself at the center of a heated debate that remains unresolved half a century later.
Our very first episode with a live studio audience! Join us as we discuss what linguist George Lakoff views as the worldviews of liberals and conservatives. In this episode, we examine what Lakoff thinks confuses liberals about conservative views (while also just attempting to refute the conservative opinion), the different words that people on the right and left use, and what he sees as the goal for studying these worldviews. Despite his accurate assessment of what each worldview is, we find a lot to criticize in this chapter, and go on many, many tangents!Follow us on Twitter! https://twitter.com/UlmtdOpinions
Ein Podcast als kleines Ei im Osternest :) In der heutigen Ausgabe vom BrickCast schaut sich Thomas die Space Minifiguren Serie genauer an. Außerdem haben wir spannende Gerüchte zu Jurassic World, Ninjago und Marvel und eine rührende Geschichte zu einem pinken Droiden.
US drone combat, extract ideas from any book, Pinker writing analysis, Flipper reversal, GPT-5 updates, and more… Subscribe to the newsletter at: https://danielmiessler.com/subscribe Join the UL community at:https://danielmiessler.com/upgrade Follow on X:https://twitter.com/danielmiessler Follow on LinkedN:https://www.linkedin.com/in/danielmiessler See you in the next one!Become a Member: https://danielmiessler.com/upgradeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mit «Post Break-Up Sex» waren The Vaccines Anfang 2010er Jahre in aller Munde. Newcomer Nominationen, Festivalgigs, ein nächstes Album folgte - die Sterne standen auf Erfolg. Doch mit den darauffolgenden eher schlechten Releases rutschte die Band bald in die Irrelevanz ab. Dass wir sie nicht vergessen haben, hat sich aber gelohnt! Ihr neustes Album «Pick-Up Full of Pink Carnations» ist überraschend gut! Stadionhymnen folgen auf emotionale Herzbrechersongs. Zu Ende ist die Zeit er ätherischen Pop-Ambitionen!
Chapter 1 What's How the Mind Works Book by Steven Pinker"How the Mind Works" is a book written by Steven Pinker, a cognitive scientist and linguist. The book explores the question of how the human mind evolved and analyzes various aspects of human cognition and behavior. Pinker delves into topics such as vision, language, emotions, relationships, and consciousness, using a combination of scientific research and evolutionary psychology.Pinker argues that the mind is not a blank slate, as commonly thought, but rather a complex system that has evolved through natural selection. He draws on a wide range of disciplines, including neuroscience, genetics, psychology, and anthropology, to provide insights into the workings of the mind.The book challenges traditional theories of cognitive processes and explores theories such as computational theory of mind and evolutionary psychology. Pinker uses a conversational and accessible writing style to engage the reader and present complex concepts in an understandable way."How the Mind Works" aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the human mind and how it shapes our thoughts, emotions, and behavior. It combines scientific evidence with evolutionary principles to offer a unique perspective on the nature of human cognition.Chapter 2 Is How the Mind Works Book A Good BookThe book "How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker is highly regarded among readers and scholars in the field of cognitive science. Pinker provides a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of human cognition, including perception, language, emotions, and memory. He offers a combination of scientific research, evolutionary theory, and examples to explain how the mind functions. Many readers appreciate Pinker's ability to present complex concepts in a clear and accessible manner, making it suitable for both academic and general audiences. The book has been praised for its engaging writing style, extensive research, and thought-provoking insights. However, it is worth noting that Pinker's theories and perspectives have sparked occasional debates and critiques among experts in the field. Some argue that his approach emphasizes a modular view of the mind and may overlook certain nuances or alternative theories. Overall, "How the Mind Works" is considered a highly recommended book for those interested in understanding the inner workings of the human mind.Chapter 3 How the Mind Works Book by Steven Pinker Summary"How the Mind Works" is a book written by cognitive scientist and linguist Steven Pinker, published in 1997. In this comprehensive work, Pinker explores the fundamental mechanisms underlying human cognition and offers an evolutionary perspective on the functioning of the mind.Pinker begins by addressing the question of why the mind exists at all and argues that it is an adaptation shaped by the process of natural selection. He delves into various aspects of cognition, including vision, language, memory, emotions, and social relationships, providing scientific explanations for their emergence and function.The book explores the concept of modularity, suggesting that the mind is composed of specialized modules designed to carry out specific tasks efficiently. Pinker argues that our cognitive abilities are a result of these specialized modules working in tandem.Drawing on evolutionary biology and psychology, Pinker reveals how our mental processes have evolved over time to solve the challenges faced by our ancestors. He discusses topics such as perception and its relationship to reality, the role of genes in shaping behavior, and the influence of culture on the mind.Pinker also addresses controversial topics like altruism, violence, and...
Chapter 1 What's The Blank Slate Book by Steven Pinker"The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" is a book written by Steven Pinker, a cognitive psychologist and linguist. Published in 2002, the book delves into the concept of the "blank slate" – the belief that human beings are born without innate traits or predispositions, and that their behavior and personality are solely shaped by their environment.Pinker argues against the blank slate theory, presenting evidence from various fields such as genetics, neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology to support the claim that human nature is not a blank slate. He explores controversial topics such as gender differences, aggression, and intelligence, challenging the common assumption that these characteristics are exclusively shaped by societal influences."The Blank Slate" sparked debates within the fields of psychology, biology, and social sciences, as well as among the general public. It played a significant role in the nature vs. nurture discussion, questioning the prevailing notion that society alone molds human behavior.Chapter 2 Is The Blank Slate Book A Good Book"The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Steven Pinker is a highly regarded book that challenges the concept of the "blank slate" view of human nature. Pinker argues against the idea that the mind is a blank slate at birth, shaped exclusively by society, culture, and experience. Instead, he suggests that there is an innate human nature with certain predispositions and traits.The book has received praise for its thought-provoking ideas, extensive research, and its ability to provide a comprehensive argument against the blank slate perspective. However, it's worth noting that Pinker's views have also evoked some criticism and are subject to ongoing debate within the scientific and philosophical communities.To determine if it is a good book for you, it may be helpful to consider your existing knowledge and interests in the topic of human nature, psychology, and the nature vs. nurture debate. Additionally, you could explore reviews, summaries, or excerpts of the book to see if its content aligns with your interests and goals.Chapter 3 The Blank Slate Book by Steven Pinker Summary"The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" is a book by cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, published in 2002. In this book, Pinker challenges the notion of the "blank slate," which refers to the belief that human minds are entirely shaped by the environment and that there is no inherent human nature.Pinker argues that this idea is flawed and that human beings are not born as "empty vessels" but have a range of innate traits and tendencies. He delves into various fields of study, including biology, psychology, and neuroscience, to provide evidence for the existence of human nature and its impact on human behavior.The book is divided into five parts. In the first part, Pinker provides a historical overview of the blank slate idea and its influence on various intellectual movements, such as behaviorism and social constructionism. He argues that this belief has had negative consequences, such as denying the existence of innate differences between individuals and hindering progress in understanding human behavior.The second part of the book focuses on debunking three key dogmas associated with the blank slate: the mind as a blank slate, the mind as an unformed clay that can be molded by society, and the mind as a tabula rasa void of emotions and desires. Pinker provides evidence from studies in genetics, brain development, and evolutionary psychology to support his arguments.In the third part, Pinker explores the implications of rejecting the blank slate for...
@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas Steven Pinker vs John Mearsheimer debate the enlightenment | Part 1 of FULL DEBATE https://youtu.be/SA-tCQJEzqk?si=ETH5nkeSxiOyEU23 Steven Pinker vs John Mearsheimer debate the enlightenment | Part 2 of FULL DEBATE https://youtu.be/gNVm-oXFK9k?si=mUcA-4LsrA0QdvtP @maidenmothermatriarch Louise Perry Subscriber Q&A https://youtu.be/K2WilN84Fbs?si=UFs4omh4Z4nHMyLR @PremierUnbelievable Tom Holland: Christianity, persecution and the meaning of the cross https://youtu.be/p6w7qw9kJ9k?si=1G3by9rtwRiILTEx @CareyNieuwhof Tim Keller on the Rise + Fall of the American Evangelical Church, Pastoral Failures, and Forgiveness https://youtu.be/M8BGvstBJUw?si=lzi5Gwc2I5yLBQ_k Paul Vander Klay clips channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX0jIcadtoxELSwehCh5QTg Bridges of Meaning Discord https://discord.gg/Jb3M8xnQ https://www.meetup.com/sacramento-estuary/ My Substack https://paulvanderklay.substack.com/ Estuary Hub Link https://www.estuaryhub.com/ If you want to schedule a one-on-one conversation check here. https://paulvanderklay.me/2019/08/06/converzations-with-pvk/ There is a video version of this podcast on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/paulvanderklay To listen to this on ITunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/paul-vanderklays-podcast/id1394314333 If you need the RSS feed for your podcast player https://paulvanderklay.podbean.com/feed/ All Amazon links here are part of the Amazon Affiliate Program. Amazon pays me a small commission at no additional cost to you if you buy through one of the product links here. This is is one (free to you) way to support my videos. https://paypal.me/paulvanderklay Blockchain backup on Lbry https://odysee.com/@paulvanderklay https://www.patreon.com/paulvanderklay Paul's Church Content at Living Stones Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh7bdktIALZ9Nq41oVCvW-A To support Paul's work by supporting his church give here. https://tithe.ly/give?c=2160640
Chapter 1 What's the The Better Angels of Our Nature"The Better Angels of Our Nature" is a book written by Steven Pinker, a cognitive scientist and psychologist. The book explores the decline of violence throughout human history and presents a compelling argument for the idea that we are living in the most peaceful era of our species. Pinker supports his claims by analyzing various historical trends, statistical data, psychological research, and case studies to demonstrate that violence has steadily decreased over time. The book challenges common misconceptions about the prevalence of violence today and offers insights into the factors contributing to this decline. Pinker attributes this decline to the rise of institutions, the influence of Enlightenment values, and various social, cultural, and technological changes. Overall, "The Better Angels of Our Nature" provides a comprehensive examination of the decline in violence, highlighting the potential for a more peaceful future.Chapter 2 Is the The Better Angels of Our Nature recommended for reading?That is subjective and dependent on personal tastes and interests. However, "The Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker has received widespread acclaim and positive reviews since its publication in 2011. The book presents a detailed analysis of violence throughout human history and argues that, contrary to popular belief, violence has actually decreased over time. It is often praised for its thorough research, compelling arguments, and thought-provoking ideas. It has been hailed as an important contribution to understanding human behavior and society. Ultimately, whether it is a good book or not depends on your personal interests and whether you find the subject matter engaging.Chapter 3 the The Better Angels of Our Nature SummaryThe Better Angels of Our Nature is a book written by psychologist Steven Pinker, published in 2011. The book explores the decline of violence and human conflict throughout history, providing a counterintuitive perspective that suggests humanity is becoming less violent over time.Pinker presents an abundance of statistical evidence to support his argument, drawing from a wide range of historical periods, cultures, and data sources. He analyzes various forms of violence, including wars, genocide, homicide rates, and state-sanctioned violence, and makes comparisons across different time periods and regions of the world.The main thesis of the book is that violence and human conflict have decreased dramatically throughout history, leading to a more peaceful world today. Pinker attributes this decline to a number of factors, including the rise of nation-states and their monopoly on violence, the spread of democracy, and the spread of education and knowledge.The book also explores several psychological and social factors that contribute to the reduction in violence. Pinker argues that violence is not an innate part of human nature, but rather a maladaptive behavior that can be mitigated through various social, cultural, and political mechanisms.Throughout the book, Pinker challenges popular misconceptions about violence and demonstrates how the world has become less violent over time. He argues that the perception of increased violence is largely a result of sensationalism in the media, which amplifies and focuses on violent events rather than considering the broader historical context.Pinker concludes his book by calling for a greater understanding of the factors that have contributed to the decline in violence, in order to continue building a more peaceful future. He suggests that recognizing...
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comCat is a researcher who focuses on the evolution of narrative and cognition. Her essays and poems have appeared in Scientific American, Mind, Science Magazine, and other publications. Her fascinating new book is Eve: How the Female Body Drove 200 Million Years of Human Evolution, and I highly recommend it.For two clips of our convo — on the combat that occurs within a pregnant woman between mother and child, and the magic of nipples while breastfeeding — pop over to our YouTube page. Other topics: Cat growing up near the “Confederate Mount Rushmore”; her mom the pianist and her dad the research psychologist; Cat helping him in the laboratory he ran; why medical research has ignored female subjects; plastination and Body Worlds; studying the first lactating mammal, Morganucodon; the origins of sex bifurcation; how “binary” is now controversial; how your gut contains countless organisms; how the placenta protects a fetus from being attacked by the mom; the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth; preeclampsia; how human reproduction is much longer than other mammals'; postpartum depression; why the left breast is favored in breastfeeding; the maternal voice; Pinker's The Language Instinct; humans as hyper-social animals; how women hunted and obtained just as much protein as men — in different ways; our omnivore flexibility; sexed voices; how even livers have a sex; the only reliable way to determine the sex of brains; how male cells can end up in a female brain; why women are more likely to wake during surgery; sexual pleasure; bird copulation; duck vaginas; the chimp's “polka dot” penis; why the slower sex of humans was key to our evolution; my challenging of Cat's claim that 20 percent of people are homosexual; and foreskin and boobs and clits, oh my.On that “20 percent of humans are homosexual” question, which I challenged directly on the podcast, it turns out Bohannon made a mistake which she says she will correct in future editions. As often happens, she conflated the “LGBTQ+” category with homosexuality, and relied on a quirky outlier study rather than the more reliable and standard measurements from places like the Williams Institute or Gallup. Williams says 1.7 percent of Americans are homosexual, i.e. gay or lesbian. Gallup says it's 2.4 percent. The trouble, of course, with the LGBTQIA+ category is that almost 60 percent are bisexual, and the “Queer” category can include heterosexuals as well. As a way of polling actual, same-sex attracted gays and lesbians, it's useless. And designed to be useless.Note too Gallup's percentage of “LGBTQIA+” people who define themselves as “queer”. It's 1.8 percent of us. And yet that word, which is offensive and triggering to many, and adopted by the tiniest fraction of actual homosexuals, is now regarded by the mainstream media as the right way to describe all of us. In the podcast, you can see that Cat simply assumes that “queer” is now used universally — because the activists and academics who form her environment have co-opted it. She readily sees how that could be the case, when we discussed it. I wish the MSM would do the same: stop defining all gays the way only 1.8 percent of the “LGBTQ+” “community” do. Of course they won't. They're far more interested in being woke than telling the truth.Browse the Dishcast archive for another convo you might enjoy (the first 102 episodes are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: McKay Coppins on Romney and the GOP, Jennifer Burns on her new biography of Milton Friedman, Joe Klein with a year-end review, and Alexandra Hudson on civility. Please send any guest recs, dissent and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.
When I was fallen away, I thought Richard Dawkins was interesting. I recall the time I saw Dawkins speak at a bookstore (Powell's in Portland, long ago). At the time I thought he was cool. I liked how he was undermining the new “Pharisees” of the modern age and sowing discord among the “Christian hypocrites” as I had yet to realize that we're all sinners. But in watching and listening to Dawkins it dawned on me after only about ten minutes how miserable he seemed, even in his arguments. The smugness filled the room. In contrast I thought of my grandmother with her rosary and the joy in her that she brought to her family. I thought of the billions of people who found hope in faith. His uninspiring message made me leave that talk feeling empty, the opposite of how I felt around my grandmother and other Christians. I entered as a Dawkins fan, only to leave repulsed by his message.Now, with that said I am somewhat grateful for Dawkins because without pure materialists like him, I may never have come back to the faith. It was like a prescribed burn in a field clearing the weeds so that the new life could spring forth. I do believe that is what's happening today in the wider world.Dawkins is the only one who really puts all his chips in the middle and lays his cards on the table. Atheists don't buy the bluff that much of postmodernism is selling. He would reject transgenderism and Baal the storm god in the same breath — as would Catholics. Dawkins even knows that deists are just hedging their bets on a bad hand. The only card player left for atheists to play against is those who believe in the one God, the God Most High. The interesting thing about atheists is that they are closer to coming back to belief in the one God than they ever realize, or would ever care to admit, because they've seen through all the smoke and mirrors of the meaningless and dead gods. They actually are closer to understanding the God who sits outside of time and space — who created time and space — than they realize because they reject all of the nonsense and cling ultimately to mathematics.However, I see this as a long process of preparing the seedbed for faith. Because I don't think many modern atheists have read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or a study Bible like that of Ignatius Press or Word on Fire. Few people have read St. Augustine's Confessions or the Imitation of Christ outside of Catholic circles. And they certainly have not read Veritatis Splendor or Fides et Ratio or Dignitatus Humanae. But if they ever did, they would find that the God we believe in in the Catholic faith is logical, beautiful, and bigger than anything we can ever imagine in creation. But of course, that revelation of a living God comes only by cooperation with God's grace, which is always ready and waiting on a no-interest loan for those who simply ask, seek, and knock. The beauty of the Church is that you get to keep your reason, all of it, and faith makes it soar higher.Dawkins just says what many have been thinking all along, which is this: God doesn't matter. Thomas Jefferson went halfway, but Dawkins just comes out as openly apostate. He is saying that the Emperor has no clothes. He is also like the Emperor Napoleon, when an officer suggested that “God willing” they would take Brussels in the morning. Napoleon allegedly said, “God? God has nothing to do with it.” That's the same answer Dawkins gives. To Dawkins, there is no God, or gods, living or otherwise, outside of our brains. Hence, he's razed the weeds and prepped the soil for coming back to what Abraham and the Apostles and St. Agnes meant by “God.”Of course, Dawkins' grand bet on the selfish gene goes too far. He's all in with all the answers, but he left out of the equation an important variable. He fails to solve for Y, as in “Y are we here?” That is the problem with this worldview, because in a world without meaning, you have to live in that world. So does everyone else, and everyone else is not necessarily an educated PhD who can spend a lifetime inspecting in all corners of science and history. Everyone else lacks the funds and leisure time to find meaning. Everyone else, for the most part, in the end, has to rely on what someone says is true. I take it on faith that germs cause disease and not fairies, even though I have never actually saw either of them infect a person. Dawkins and company can win arguments about how the world works, but what they cannot win an argument about is why a sunset is beautiful. When there is no satisfactory ultimate why, people spend a lifetime searching for that variable. In the end, what the world without a living God results in is someone else taking control by force and dictating that the value of Y must be what they say it is, simply because they said so.So even though I'm not a Dawkins fan, at least he isn't hedging his bets. He's all in, and I actually think deniers like him are closer to finding God than the builders of Babel or the deists like Ben Franklin ever were. Having the door half-open to God is like letting the heat out of the house in winter. At some point, you have to make up your mind to go outside or stay inside. This makes me realize, truly, that we should pray for Richard Dawkins. He may end up bringing more people back to faith in God than we could have ever realized. He is almost at the top of the circle, since when we run away from God, we often find ourselves running right into the arms of God.Today, we are witnessing the outcome of what happens when the ideas of Dawkins are taken to its logical end. The reason Dawkins is wrong is that he doesn't understand what the builders at Babel and the deists like Ben Franklin understood well. The ancient emperors from history and American Founders knew that people needed religion, and to pull that rug out from society would cause the city itself to collapse. Now we are seeing funny religions pop up, because we pretend we don't need one.The root problem for Dawkins is that he has a middle-school concept of God that he never outgrew. He's also operating as an autonomous speaker of “his truth” without a plan or concept of how to organize a world. He doesn't have employees or mouths to feed or an economy to plan. In the walled-in academic world where the idea of “no souls” exists, Dawkins fails to realize something rather large. His theory of the “Selfish Gene” starts from the bottom, instead of the top, and therefore he cannot describe the whole. His answer of “Because of genes!” is too simple. A toe does not describe the wholeness of a person any more than a gene does, and genes cannot explain the totality of human nature. Dawkins is so smart, but he can't understand what simple farmers and mothers and the poor with no education understand perfectly well. You would think an evolutionary biologist would be very equipped to understand the parable of the grain of wheat, but somehow he misses it completely. I find this to be marvelous irony.We need religion. People need religion. Or they will find one. And it won't be what you expect. In the clean, childless world of our universities, ideas sound good that lack depth. Dawkins' answer is from the atomic layer, and he emerges from a quiet library to tell us that we are nothing but atoms. Meanwhile the bustle of the street doesn't hear a word he's said, because life is happening far beyond the atomic layer. When Dawkins' burst forth from his library, he was telling a very different message from what the apostles told when they emerged from the Upper Room at Pentecost, after having received the breath of life, touched by tongues of fire. No, when Dawkins and his disciples emerged in their lab coats to tell us the good news, their message was that respiration is a selfish act to propagate our genes and that there is no meaning to any of it. The apostles had a message of eternal life, while Dawkins made us ponder suicide.So while I commend Dawkins for his honesty, he is actually more foolish than the leaders of Babel or Jefferson. At least the leaders at Babel and Jefferson were offering something to believe in: “Look, here's a tower. It's a Gate to God. See?” And Jefferson and Franklin offer something, too: “Look, here's a sacred document, a Constitution, where we make a nod to God — and also — over there — see the Statue of Liberty?”Dawkins only offers the abyss. And our brains revolt at the idea. We all know the Big Empty is there, but we don't really want to stand on the edge and look into it. We can't. Not for long. The temptation to believe that Dawkins is right draws us all, as doubt is more natural to us than faith. So even if we dabble in disbelief, most move away from the edge in search of a Higher Power of some kind. The search for God, when thwarted or stifled or silenced, erupts like boils, in strange places and in uncomfortable ways. We are already seeing strange religions being born in America now, almost more strange than that of the pagan gods of Babel or America's traditional worship of the rule of law, wealth, and the slippery thing called “Liberty.”The Tower of Babel or the Constitution may be an elaborate way to justify power, but it is a better attempt at meaning than what Dawkins offers the masses. But again, Dawkins is the only honest one, which is also why his idea is the most dangerous. He's the anti-Jesus (I don't want to call him the anti-Christ, because he lacks the charisma needed for that). Dawkins tells us that we are purely material beings without souls. He goes all the way.Most people hold back and speak the old common language that dances around this fact, finding idols and obsessions to occupy or fence off the Big Empty. Dawkins has spent his life shouting this message and now we are seeing what fruit it bears, where we are in fact atomized, solitary beings (kind of like his selfish gene!). When we are just chemical machines, we do indeed act like the “selfish gene” writ large. Again, not only is this message the polar opposite of Christ, but it's brings the polar opposite result. Where people know Christ, they form communities, families, and fellowship. There is warmth amid the struggle. It's not perfect. But when suffering comes, there is a prayer, and a church, and a people, and the Body of Christ. Dawkins inability to get past a small understanding of God leaves him on the playground all alone. As we watch millions of community organizations and church groups fading away in America, we are clearly becoming more atomized, as people sit at home watching TV alone instead of joining the Lions' Club or a bowling team. What is worrisome about this is that Hannah Arendt, who dissected the rise of 1930's totalitarianism, said that loneliness, a.k.a atomization, is a first step toward totalitarianism, because isolated people without purpose or faith are attracted to a powerful ideology that delivers some kind of meaning. Hence, the transgender craze we are seeing is not surprising at all. Those people are seeking God, but it's a long way home. I sympathize because I did the same thing, but with liquor. That's also a long way home.To me, in the end, Dawkins' worldview makes Kurt Cobain or Morrissey seem light-hearted. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit whydidpetersink.substack.com
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Violence Before Agriculture, published by John G. Halstead on October 2, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is a summary of a report on trends in violence since the dawn of humanity: from the hunter-gatherer period to the present day. The full report is available at this Substack and as a preprint on SSRN. Phil did 95% of the work on the report. Expert reviewers provided the following comments on our report. "Thomson and Halstead have provided an admirably thorough and fair assessment of this difficult and emotionally fraught empirical question. I don't agree with all of their conclusions, but this will surely be the standard reference for this issue for years to come." Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University "This work uses an impressively comprehensive survey of ethnographic and archeological data on military mortality in historically and archeologically known small-scale societies in an effort to pin down the scale of the killing in the pre-agricultural world. This will be a useful addition to the literature. It is an admirably cautious assessment of the war mortality data, which are exceptionally fragile; and the conclusions it draws about killing rates prior to the Holocene are probably as good as we are likely to get for the time being." Paul Roscoe, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Maine Epistemic status We think our estimates here move understanding of prehistoric violence forward by rigorously focussing on the pre-agricultural period and attempting to be as comprehensive as possible with the available evidence. However, data in the relevant fields of ethnography and archeology is unusually shaky, so we would not be surprised if it turned out that some of the underlying data turns out to be wrong. We are especially unsure about our method for estimating actual violent mortality rates from the measured, observable rates in the raw archeology data. One of us (Phil) has a masters in anthropology. Neither of us have any expertise in archeology. Guide for the reader If you are interested in this study simply as a reference for likely rates/patterns of violence in the pre-agricultural world, all our main results and conclusions are presented in the Summary. The rest of the study explores the evidence in more depth and explains how we put our results together. We first cover the ethnographic evidence, then the archeological evidence. The study ends with a more speculative discussion of our findings and their possible implications. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the following expert reviewers for their extensive and insightful comments and suggestions, which have helped to make this report substantially better. Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University Robert Kelly, Professor of Archeology at the University of Wyoming Paul Roscoe, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Maine We would also like to thank Prof. Hisashi Nakao, Prof. Douglas Fry, Prof. Nelson Graburn, and Holden Karnofsky for commenting, responding to queries and sharing materials. Around 11,000 years ago plants and animals began to be domesticated, a process which would completely transform the lifeways of our species. Human societies all over the world came to depend almost entirely on farming. Before this transformative period of history, everyone was a hunter-gatherer. For about 96% of the approximately 300,000 years since Homo sapiens evolved, we relied on wild plants and animals for food. Our question is: what do we know about how violent these pre-agricultural people were? In 2011 Steven Pinker published The Better Angels of Our Nature. According to Pinker, prehistoric small-scale societies were generally extremely violent by comparison with modern stat...
War in Ukraine. Global poverty on the rise. Hunger, too. Not to mention a persistent pandemic. It doesn't feel like a particularly good time to be alive. And yet, Harvard psychologist Stephen Pinker argues that things are getting better today than ever across the world, based on the metrics that matter. Like laundry. In 1920, the average American spent 11.5 hours a week doing laundry (and that average American was almost always a woman, dudes just wore dirty clothes). By 2014, the number had dropped to 1.5 hours a week, thanks to what renowned public health scholar Hans Rosling called "greatest invention of the Industrial Revolution”: the washing machine. By freeing people of washing laundry by hand, this new technology allowed parents to devote more time to educating their children, and it allowed women to cultivate a life beyond the washboard. The automation of laundry is just one of many metrics that Pinker, uses to measure human progress. But how does his optimistic view of the state of the world stack up against the brutality of the modern world? Ian Bremmers asks this "relentlessly optimistic macro thinker" to share his view of the world on the GZERO World podcast.
War in Ukraine. Global poverty on the rise. Hunger, too. Not to mention a persistent pandemic. It doesn't feel like a particularly good time to be alive. And yet, Harvard psychologist Stephen Pinker argues that things are getting better today than ever across the world, based on the metrics that matter. Like laundry. In 1920, the average American spent 11.5 hours a week doing laundry (and that average American was almost always a woman, dudes just wore dirty clothes). By 2014, the number had dropped to 1.5 hours a week, thanks to what renowned public health scholar Hans Rosling called "greatest invention of the Industrial Revolution”: the washing machine. By freeing people of washing laundry by hand, this new technology allowed parents to devote more time to educating their children, and it allowed women to cultivate a life beyond the washboard. The automation of laundry is just one of many metrics that Pinker, uses to measure human progress. But how does his optimistic view of the state of the world stack up against the brutality of the modern world? Ian Bremmers asks this "relentlessly optimistic macro thinker" to share his view of the world on the GZERO World podcast. Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
John Gray is one of the UK's most important and influential political thinkers. Sceptical of ideas about progress and the perfectibility of human nature, he is an arch critic of liberalism, believing that history moves in cycles rather than inexorably towards a better future. For this episode of Intelligence Squared he is joined by David Runciman, a political scientist known for his clear analysis of modern political complexities. Together they explore the themes of Gray's new book The New Leviathans: Thoughts After Liberalism, which looks at the world of the 2020s through the prism of the great 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, famous for saying that without government, life would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Traversing 20th-century Russia, India and China, and referencing thinkers from Nietzsche and Hegel to Pinker and Fukuyama, Gray shares his realist vision for what the future may hold and explains how, in a world of absurdity, meaning can be found not in grandiose ideas but in more modest ethics. We'd love to hear your feedback and what you think we should talk about next, who we should have on and what our future debates should be. Send us an email or voice note with your thoughts to podcasts@intelligencesquared.com or Tweet us @intelligence2. And if you'd like to support our mission to foster honest debate and compelling conversations, as well as ad-free podcasts, exclusive bonus content, early access and much more, become a supporter of Intelligence Squared. Just visit intelligencesquared.com/membership to find out more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this wide-ranging conversation, renowned author and professor Steven Pinker describes that while he resists being called an “optimist,” as the label doesn't necessarily suit his temperament, his deep dives into historical data have convinced him that the world is indeed getting better and has been on a steady trajectory since the days of the Enlightenment, the subject of one of his many acclaimed books. Dr. Pinker also describes why he believes so many intellectuals resist acknowledging that the world is making progress; and adds, ironically, that self-described “progressives” often have the toughest time with this. He also shares his concerns about the policing of speech on college campuses – including Harvard – and the deleterious effects this has on students' wellbeing.
For the second part of our conversation between cognitive psychologist and bestselling author Steven Pinker and academic and podcaster David Runciman, who teaches politics and history at Cambridge University, we rejoin the discussion with the two looking at the roots of skepticism. This interview first appeared on Intelligence Squared in early 2019 at the time of the publication of Pinker's book, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. We'd love to hear your feedback and what you think we should talk about next, who we should have on and what our future debates should be. Send us an email or voice note with your thoughts to podcasts@intelligencesquared.com or Tweet us @intelligence2. And if you'd like to support our mission to foster honest debate and compelling conversations, as well as ad-free podcasts, exclusive bonus content, early access and much more, become a supporter of Intelligence Squared today. Just visit intelligencesquared.com/membership to find out more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
For this edition, Intelligence Squared revisits a compelling discussion from 2019 with one of the world's foremost cognitive psychologists, Steven Pinker, whose work often focuses on language, the mind, and human nature. He was joined in conversation by David Runciman, the academic and podcaster who teaches politics and history at Cambridge University, to discuss the themes of Pinker's book, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. This is the first half of a two-part conversation. Join us for part two in the following episode. We'd love to hear your feedback and what you think we should talk about next, who we should have on and what our future debates should be. Send us an email or voice note with your thoughts to podcasts@intelligencesquared.com or Tweet us @intelligence2. And if you'd like to support our mission to foster honest debate and compelling conversations, as well as ad-free podcasts, exclusive bonus content, early access and much more, become a supporter of Intelligence Squared today. Just visit intelligencesquared.com/membership to find out more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In 1989 Wes Craven attempted to create a new horror franchise with a Freddy Krueger-type killer named Horace Pinker. Despite a unique marketing campaign, the series failed at launch. Over thirty years later the film has been re-evaluated and gained a loyal following. Mike and Deke take a deep dive to discuss if Pinker stands on his own or buckles under the shadow of his bigger, stripe-sweatered brother. And what hidden meaning could Shocker be an allegory for? Find out here on The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.
Meet Steven Pinker whose denial of limits increases the likelihood of his worst fear: the end of the Enlightenment. Please share this episode with your friends and start a conversation.For an entertaining deep dive into the theme of season five (Phalse Prophets), read the definitive peer-reviewed taxonomic analysis from our very own Jason Bradford, PhD. Sources/Links/Notes:David Marchese, "Steven Pinker Thinks Your Sense of Imminent Doom Is Wrong" in The New York Times Magazine (2021).The Work that Reconnects NetworkGood Grief NetworkThree relevant past episodes of Crazy Town are episode 39 on the myth of progress, episode 35 on self-domestication, and episode 34 on terror management theory."Steven Pinker: The Mind Reader" in The Guardian (1999).Robert Wright, "The 2004 Time 100" in Time Magazine (2004).Nick Gillespie, "Steven Pinker Loves the Enlightenment" in Reason Magazine (2018).David A. Bell, "Waiting for Steven Pinker's enlightenment" in The Nation (2018).Emile Torres, "Steven Pinker's fake enlightenment" in Salon (2019).Robert Epstein, "Book Review: The Better Angels of Our Nature" in Scientific American (2011).Tyler Cowen, "Steven Pinker on Language, Reason, and the Future of Violence," Mercatus Center (2016).Mike Freiheit and Lyta Gold, "Comic: Steven Pinker--Certified Grief Counselor" in Current Affairs 2018). George Monbiot, "Contrary to Reason" in The Guardian (2018).Alex Blasdel, "Pinker's progress: the celebrity scientist at the centre of the culture wars" in The Guardian (2021).Support the show
In this installment of Best Of The Gist, we listen back to the Tuesday Spiel about a recent spate of really fabulous news that just gets drowned out by the steady drumbeat of negativity. Then we listen back to Mike's February 26, 2018 interview with Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, who argues that we've had a roughly 300-year run of steady improvements in technology, health, and civility, and that it just so happens that the only thing as constant as human progress is our tendency to focus on human shortcomings. Pinker's interview corresponded with the release of Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, visit: https://advertisecast.com/TheGist Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In episode 1318, Jack and Miles are joined by comedian, activist and writer Derrick Lemos to discuss… Dr. Oz Campaign Put Itself To Bed I Guess…, Just when we thought the GOP was down THEY GET BACK IN LINE!!! Popular Sociology – Sapiens And Pinker – Are Bullshit and more! Dr. Oz Campaign Put Itself To Bed I Guess… Oz campaign on John Fetterman: If he had 'ever eaten a vegetable in his life,' he wouldn't have 'had a stroke' Oz Pressed Trump Admin To OK Quack COVID Drug Popular Sociology – Sapiens And Pinker – Are Bullshit The Dangerous Populist Science of Yuval Noah Harari Pinker's List: Exaggerating Prehistoric War Mortality LISTEN: TWO SHRiMPS (feat. Mac DeMarco) by DOMi & JD BeckSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This episode was recorded on June 6th, 2021.Dr. Peterson, Steven Pinker, and Jonathan Haidt sit down to discuss truth, how societies function, utopias, the role of religion, & more.Steven Pinker is a psychology professor at Harvard. He's the author of Enlightenment Now and The Blank Slate. His 12th book, "Rationality," is out now. Dr. Pinker has received many awards and often writes for The Guardian and The NY Times.Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist at NYU Stern. His research focuses on the intuitive foundations of morality across cultures. He's the author of The Righteous Mind and The Coddling of the American Mind. His next book, "Three Stories about Capitalism," is expected by 2022.Follow Steven's Twitter:https://twitter.com/sapinkerRead Steven Pinker's book:https://stevenpinker.com/publications/rationality-what-it-why-it-seems-so-scarce-and-why-it-mattersFind more Jonathan Haidt here:https://www.thecoddling.com/Read Jonathan's book:https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224919Jonathan's most recent essay:https://www.persuasion.community/p/haidt-monomania-is-illiberal-and____[0:00] Intro[00:18] Jordan introduces guests Dr. Stephen Pinker and Dr. Jonathan Haidt[02:47] Catching up with the recent research and endeavors of Jonathan Haidt. Elaborating on the framework of moralism versus true and false when viewing the world[07:00] How cognitive biases lead to a more pessimistic view of the world[10:30] The problems with the idea of utopia and its beneficial uses when properly inserted into a society's belief (religious) structure[18:00] Examining the role group religions play in bringing people together[24:30] Jordan highlights the role he believes Christianity had in turning people's attention to the evil within us all[29:30] Reflections on Enlightenment Now. How do you engage people towards a higher set of goals without religion as a backbone?[38:00] Is the world we live in a new frontier based on the expanding influence of the internet and social media on individuals' decision-making?[48:00] Discussion on the dangers posed by the new world to the endurance of liberal democracies[56:00] Finding truth in the post-2012 social media revolution[1:06:00] The rate of change in modern life[1:07:00] The Righteous Mind, Haidt's interpretation of the religious instinct/impulse and why he gets a positive reaction from religious crowds[1:06:00] Saying goodbye to Dr. Pinker due to time constraints[1:17:30] The human ability for imitation through learning or exploring[1:25:30] Religion as a social function? Or an inherent impulse inside us all to find higher states?[1:29:30] Comparing views on the central uniting principle of groups, societies, or human beings for that matter[1:33:00] Is the extreme claim that power is the central driving factor of western European civilization grounded in reality?[1:37:52] Is having a common purpose or shared beliefs a more powerful way of bringing people together?[1:45:00] Recounting Haidt's research on disgust in both humans and animals[1:52:00] Exploring any correlation to disgust levels and political beliefs/alliance[02:02:30] Wrapping up Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
