"Reflect upon the Past. Embrace your Present. Orchestrate our Futures." -- Artemis 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind’s journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul’s fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope’s strength re-steeled. But to earn final peace at the universe’s endless refrain, We must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
Example : The realization of global resources is limited and is not forever, and humanity makes the changes to preserve and protect it. We conserve it in a safe uncapitalized way that only benefits humanity instead of wealthy. The global wealth divide is getting bigger and bigger and we are developing a problems in our global free market system with corruption and greed being hidden more.
You should check out Elinor Ostrom's "Governing the Commons" This shows that people can share common resources without depleting them if they agree to enforce common rules.
This should be an hour video, going into detail, and explaining more about it. I do think that 4 mins is not enough, yet great topic, I never knew about the game theory, and now I do. Fun fact: my thesis paper, was against Steven Pinker, because I did not agree that the world is making progress as he claims. What is funny is, later after a year from writing that, I read two of his books, and now I'm one of his biggest fans, because I do think he is own to something. That is the power of reading and trying to have an open mind.
The Better Angels of our Nature is one of my favourite books I've ever read purely because of how it shifted my perception of civilization and humanity. An astounding work of literature.
@tf-lv4zu He didn't read his POPULAR books. Do you think Bohr, Heisenberg etc waited for Einstein to publish his book for laypeople to argue about his theory of Relativity? Yeah, its definitely called research for a reason, lol.
Yes exactly. Social media has ruined society as a whole. People take a picture of themselves and expect the world to see it. Just the click of a button makes people think they are so gifted and special. Comparable to spoiled rotten children.
3:53 not sure about that last one... the saying goes that, in times of universal availability of knowledge, ignorance is a choice, and I see too many people choose ignorance.
I think you're right. That has to do with our comfort society. Too complacent with a life we hate because changing it is perceived as harder. Ignorance is easier, but worse for you. People love to "turn their brains off" and they know they're doing it. I ask people why, and I never understand their explanations. It seems that pure ignorance is neutral, but choosing ignorance is the same as killing 5 people in the trolley problem. People need to stop killing the metaphorical 5 people every single day, and choose to kill 1 person (again, metaphor) even if the thought makes them uncomfortable because it's worth it. We need more cognitive empathy, ironically the kind of empathy that sociopaths tend to be high in.
the problem is that these "liberal" ideas tend to minimize the impact of the environment, of material conditions. If you are born in poverty, and during your childhood your main concern is to survive, little time is available for "enlightenment" (even today thousands of children are working, or die from complications of malnutrition). The practical results of "game theory" ideas on many social issues, is rampant individualism ..."they are doomed by meritocracy"
There are also way too many cases where there's a strong cultural incentive to remain ignorant - usually from within one's own community or friend circle.
@@pedrova8058 Meritocracy saved my family from generations of serfdom and poverty. Having left an Eastern block country first controlled by absolute rule of monarchy then tyranny of communism my grand parents came to America where their hard work and intelligence paid off! The next generation and the next even more so. We are all professionals or entrepreneurs so the system of meritocracy served us well. Now we are being told we genocided the indigenous populations 🤔Interesting since we lived elsewhere when that occurred. We are also being told we are “privileged” due to our skin colour 😳🤔Again interesting as our family has worked hard and sacrificed all our lives here in America. Nothing presumed or handed to us and yet we must accept that label? 😤🤔🤔🤔🤔Something is amiss!
2:42 reminds me of a quote from Captain Jean-Luc Picard in *Star Trek: The Next Generation* on prioritizing truth, _"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth! It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based. And if you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don't deserve to wear that uniform!"_
who ever created Star Trek universe and now writing for the series are amazingly intelligent people. i loved that there are people other than me who take Star Trek serious.
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
Since many people lie with abandon, including to themselves, please realize "personal truth" or the more frequent "my truth" may have no relation to actual truth beyond mere coincidence.
I would love to see an example of a mathematical model/simulation of game theory applied to the social sciences like this such as to an area of the economy or to the city transportation like in the example. Everyone’s best interests can be compatible and seen to in a humanistic way.
There is no such thing as everyone best interest the word is selfish i like how you stupid people thing we all align and want the same thing that so foolish and childless.😂😂
there are some people who do that on the "GAMETHEORY" subreddit, though i'm not sure how accurate they all are though cause i personally more enjoy the philosophical/political aspect of game theory as i have very minimal interest in math but am alright at discussing verbal ideas. i don't mean for this to sound anti-math at all as i am massively appreciative of the people who do the real applicative work, but i often wonder if sometimes the math in game theory could miss some majorly influencing unforeseen variables which exist in the real world. i personally believe that knowing basic narrative ideas from history or even fictional books can be a simpler way for most people to learn very possible fundamental cause and effect relationships of social events, and how we might be able to "predict" when one may be close to happening as there will be an increasing pattern of observation of similarities to the learned ideals, such as the general ideals of "extremist authority", and how it generally looks like a restriction of very basic freedoms. i also feel narrative/history education could help in ensuring that nationalist logicians aren't just trying to win battles with cold logical math, but are also intend to increase survivability around the world as a whole as is the name of the game of life. this may include purposefully surrendering a battle because of an awareness that they are fighting for people who represent wanting to decrease the survivability of other people (or even animals if you consider forfeiting deforestation or something similar as an act of surrendering to animals so that they may survive.)
the world needs more enlightenment humanism. As Pinker said, we all want and need a food water, warmth etc. I think there is a most efficient model where everyone gets those things(through technological applications; for example ease of "creating" food today vs. 2000 years ago) instead of competing and hoarding them. Im rooting for us
'Communism 2.0' is the way to go then. I'm not sure it is possible to send BILLIONS in the name of NATO and the US, to aid Ukraine at war against Russia, and at the same time send BILLIONS to help generate the basic needs (which also have a relevant cost) for people that really needs them for surviving & thriving. Look at what the fellow President of Brazil, Lula, answered to the German Chancellor, Scholz, when the latter asked the former to send weapons to Ukraine along with other NATO allies: 'Our only War is against Hunger.' (something similar). This is the way to think right.
@@Ben-s3y2h Public ownership of the means of production. You can't hoard what you don't own and you also can''t use it in competition or compete for it.
Downplaying the value, role and impact of emotions and feelings in all the progress thats been made as well as the upheaval that's been created. Somethings were changed, not because we thought they were horrible but because we felt they were horrible. Rational though and action are one part of the human puzzle and not the whole of it
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming, or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
Yes BEAUTIFUL MINDS are being drowned out by the insanity of “ othering “ for power grabs. Divided the earth goes down in flames…the final lose/lose. Gosh, I had forgotten what a bright light of hope Steven is…I have got to dust of a couple of his books and reinvigorate myself!
I don't see our present day threats and challenges [just] where this presenter sees them, and I don't see "progress" where sees it. I do see game theory being played out globally by different sets of factors and variables.
Can game theory modified to include irrational behavior? I don't think people usually think rationally. When you assume people think rationally, it will give a big contradiction, practically and even theoretically.
Actually base rationality can produce more harm than say unreciprocated altruism. It's part of our animal behavior to be self preserving, hence rational.. even ants act rationally
The problem with Game Theory is that it assumes all players will be motivated only by their own self-interest, without regards to the greater good. With this assumption, we are guaranteed to be doomed.
In the sense that homo sapiens have always been "explorers", seekers of facts, one would hope that [facts] "truth" is far more important than personal "feelings". All through childhood and even into a state of maturity we are always reminded and encouraged to "learn to control our emotions". As an undergraduate majoring in Sociology I had the fortune of Game Theory study, except then where I was in university it was taught as a slight variant referred to as "Exchange Theory". It "woke" me to a new understanding of human social intercourse.
The truth has been known for decades. Attempts to communicate it also has. Why do people choose ignorance? I believe it's because they're selfish and not nudged properly where compassion becomes easier than purposeful ignorance of complacency.
This video was ok. I enjoyed it, but wish it was longer & more in depth, as it just seemed to scratch the surface with a general overview. Does the word rational insinuate that logic must be backed by math? Is it illogical or irrational if personal logic or rationale is based on beliefs? Does finding common ground mean that people/a person is being rational by establishing a "more correct" answer? Does a "more correct" answer really differ from a black & white answer if the outcome is the same?
This video is a small excerpt from the 1 hour 20 minute long video he has on "Rationality." You can find it on BigThink's channel or just search for it.
Sadly, very many Americans seem to be actually proud to be "ignorant" of huge branches of knowledge, common sense or wisdom. And it seems true that knowledge or even wisdom is not the panacea that knowledgeable and wise people sometimes make them out to be. There are times to best let them go and just live intuitively or passively. Instead, I wish our institutions of learning would emphasize the PARADOXES present in all aspects of life. We don't need to be, and indeed we are each not, completely smart, wise beyond our years, funny as Robin Williams (RIP), beloved as Tom Hanks, attractive or not, rich or poor, inspired or not, creative or not, committed or not. We are almost all in a middle somewhere and there's no report card after school encouraging us to study or be more. In fact, (another general statement) most people seem to reduce their ambitions once they have a kid. So I think it might be better, given all these ambiguities, mixed feelings and missing information, that we should study paradox from grade school and get comfortable with our ignorance and that truth itself depends on our perspectives and theories of mind.
I'll like your comment for the most part, but from decades of experience I think you're wrong to claim that there are "knowledgeable and wise people" right now, if ever because if there were I'm pretty sure the majority of us would be practicing actual reasonableness - which is my claim that nobody is actually reasonable nor ending harming and doing worse to innocent and helpless children that I also know for an absolute fact that the majority is horrifically doing. I also don't think you're right about "We are almost all in a middle somewhere", because child abuses are still happening by the majority and pretty much always rule anyone calling them out are crazy or something. In fact, my children and I having been and still being tortured and harmed on purpose, even after saying no and stop, I believe this so-called way of life is in fact barbaric and a scam. And I don't exactly know what you mean by "paradox" study right now, I just think something more simple would be better to address, like coming to an even basic agreement about what actual an actual reasonable person would be like? And something that the harmed & harmful if not corrupt majority or at least most of it could learn too?
In my opinion, humanism is facing a significant crisis due to our slow progress in learning how to be better humans. While some thinkers and scientists may applaud our achievements over the past century, I believe this is a misleading and dangerous notion that conceals the many problems that disturbe our society today. Despite technological advancements, the majority of people continue to struggle with a range of issues, and it's crucial that we acknowledge and address these challenges rather than pretending they don't exist. Ultimately, I worry that our focus on positivity may be causing us to overlook the urgent need for change and improvement, and we must remain vigilant in our efforts to create a more just and equitable world. The quality of this video is only as good as the melody playing in the background. I wonder if this pleasant tune is merely a lullaby intended to lull us into a state of complacency...
I dont see how we can make it. Maybe we are headed to disgrace, and this disgrace will allow better times to come... Slowly... Until, yet, again, the harmony cannot sustain itself anymore...
Yup. Wealth inequality is so big it might make a black hole and suck us in. Too many religions where tribalism prevails, cultish way of thinking still makes the paradigms of most people. And academia is leaning more into the ivory tower, favoring already priviledge people and making us believe they are the ones who suffer the most. i.e white women in Western societies.
I don't think anyone of sound mind would contend that humanity doesn't face significant challenges (climate change, inequality, authoritarianism, etc). That said, I think if you listen to people like Steven Pinker, Hans Rosling, or even Bill Gates, you learn that it is both important to work towards solving challenges, but also to take them in perspective and to acknowledge where progress is being made. Contrary to your claim of being lulled into complacency, I think the bigger problem is of paralysis on all sides due to a feeling of apocalyptic crisis. It is hard to discuss the nuts and bolts of solving our problems and negotiate between opposing groups when everyone believes that every choice is an existential one. Indeed, even though we as humans are not designed to take in suffering and change at global scales and timeframes, we are approaching a point in time when we mostly have the technology to provide relatively comfortable lives for everyone on the planet, and the remaining challenge to do so is sociopolitical.
@@simonfriedman9212 Yes you are fully right "we as humans are not designed to take in suffering and change at global scales and timeframes" maybe focusing learning those skills will help us to become better humans. We really have the technologies and the resources to change the way we life in this planet and improve life for everyone (what may sounds like an utopia) but the problem that it's complicated because we need a better social interface on a global scale and was we know that's hard to achieve when there are people that simply don't care and do exactly the opposite. People like Putin for example that just for egotist reasons make pain, suffering and war a reality on the 21st century. I don't only blame him I blame everyone including myself, because we have to stop dividing the world in small pieces and groups and factions...
"Wait for the bus in the rain v. drive my SUV." Not everybody has a SUV. In fact, far more people do not own a SUV than do. The sophistry of the righteous, enlightened liberal mind knows no bounds and sees reality and logic as deadly enemies. Many of us wait in the rain for the bus because the reality is that we not only do not own an 40,000 dollar SUV, but we can't afford the price of gas to fill a quarter of the SUV's tank. It's the same sophist and illogical argument that got millions of healthy, disease-free people imprisoned in their own homes, which is hardly healthy anyway, for months on end in order to protect the population's health. For some people, absurdity is a religion.
From the 2 - 3 minute mark the concept he is discussing is known as identity protective cognition. A very powerful explanation of political polarization and its resistance to reason.
A key component to this discussion is that there is a difference between psychology and sociology. It helps very much to know the difference; it even dissipates internal struggles sometimes. An excellent video, Thanks BT and S. Pinker.❤
It's ironic that a lecture on game theory and the human condition would overlook a basic observation on game theory and the human condition. At 3:37, Dr. Pinker says, "Humanistic values have a kind of built-in advantage when you think about them, in that they're the only things that you can defend when you have a negotiation with someone who is like you." But there is a built-in Judeo-Christian assumption here that those "like you" include all, and only, human beings -- and there is no logical justification for this reading. The fact is that some people (and some non-human creatures) are more like me than others. If I can form a dominant coalition with people who are _much_ like me, in a way that excludes a group of people _less_ like me (who those more like me intend to exploit) then the only people I have to reason with are my coalition partners. If Pinker's argument were logically valid, it would remain valid with "human" replaced by "vertebrate" -- in which case eating chicken would be the moral equivalent of cannibalism, and setting out mouse traps would be the moral equivalent of murder. The fact is that chickens and mice do not have a seat at the table because we can form a dominant coalition that excludes them from holding rights to life, liberty, and property. But logically, isn't that just what the Nazis did to the Jews, and ante-bellum Southern whites did to blacks? I think Peter Singer is a nutjob, but at least he is intellectually honest. From the standpoint of logic, either meat is murder, or some of your fellow men are fair game as prey. There's nothing logically distinctive about the word "human". The reason I believe we should not exploit our fellow human beings is that they are children of our common Father in Heaven. But you cannot pull this Judeo-Christian principle out of the hat of secular humanism, whichever way you squirm. Like Steven Pinker and Sam Harris, I tried to do it when I was an atheist, too -- but I was intellectually honest enough to see that the attempts failed.
Great commentary, more valuable than this generic video. I'm glad I went through the comments section to find your perspective, because while I don't completely agree with it, I like that someone is criticizing Pinker, who I disagree with even more.
In my opinion human progress is attained not by the rationality of the actors but by the ability to make use of available resources. Resources is the key. when it goes dry humans become wicked when it abound humans seem good. An example what stopped the slave trade? Human ethics? No. The invention of a better slave the machines.
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
Game theory results in rule utilitarianism of the selfish without need for morality. Simplified Game Theory Steps; 1. Betray/ Coop (one side takes advantage of the other, "fool me once") 2. Betray/ Betray (both sides fight, better than being abused, "fool me twice") 3. Coop/ Coop (both sides coop, even if they hate each other, because better than fighting) Society would be transformed if everyone was sensitive to game theory, as well as our confirmation biases and conditioning. If you can empathize with the Tic Tac aliens, you can see us for the struggling apes we are.
I'm going to disagree with the phrase "objectively good." 2:50 Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts Good: to be desired or approved of This phrase "objectively good" seems contradictory. First, I consider desire or seeking approval to be a type of emotion. Second, for something to be good, it seems that thing would require desire. Third, an objective thing would be a thing that doesn't require desire. Fourth, a thing cannot require desire and not require desire. Therefore, I conclude that "objective good" is logically inconsistent.
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming, or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
Earth is a classroom. We come here to learn and grow. When we, as a group, are doing well, the classroom becomes a nicer place to be, temporarily. When we don't do well as a group, the classroom becomes more challenging, more difficult. We will come and go, many times, but the classroom endures. We are not here to fix the classroom. We are here to improve ourselves.
To keep the authenticity of these videos intact they should either avoid any direct example of political oppression (i.e. Russian invasion of Ukraine) or show examples from all parts of the world from present and past (i.e. current aggression of Iseael towards Palestines or previous US aggressions towards Iraq or past Vietnam war). Otherwise while watching, it feels like these videos tell the stories of importance of knowledge, rationality and human rights on a superficial level but ultimately being slave to only the ideologies, beliefs and political stance heralded by the West.
Pah, doing what you suggest would also just show superficiality... Further, the enlightenment historic movement is based in the |West|, though neither solely nor alone. Further this video is just superficial ... Game theory the new science to explain how people behave, because we needed modern science to know how ...
@@majormononoke8958 @Major Mononoke Something originiating in the West doesn't mean this video necessarily has to be about supporting West. In fact the idea of enlightenment as the video explained is the idea that knowledge, rationality and scientific method as a whole can be used for the betterment of humankind which in itself is an objective and region-agnostic concept. Also I don't understand how suggestion would make the video superficial. My point is to either avoid political examples or provide examples from different sides. Lastly, obviously Gamd Theory being an answer to tackling biggest problems of humanity might be an exaggeration but Game Theory itself is a topic of applied mathematics/economics which is actually used in real life to tackle real-life strategical problems.
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming, or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
Pinker presumes there is an objective moral standard against which we are progressing, but gives no basis for asserting that standard. In fact, he wants a world where everyone just agrees with his moral preferences, which is just as tribal as any other bias. If someone wants to believe that competition brings the best out of humanity, neither Pinker nor game theory can objectively say why his moral standard is universally better or more advisable.
I disagree with Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature", instead, I find Fazal's work "Dead Wrong?" to be a better outlook on the Exaggerated Reports of War’s Demise by Pinker. Not to say he's not a good thinker, but His work often is what I'd call "the sleeping pill for the masses" . It makes you think that the world is getting safer and better to live in. It's like if the Matrix had an Agent lets say to keep the peace so you don't realize you're being used as a battery for the capitalistic machine. Agent Pinker
Values, is a universal language. Human Rights is a Universal language. Empathy is a Universal language. Love is a Universal language: Respect, compassion, freedom, forgiveness. Love is root, the light, the nucleus that contains and aligns our values, health, life experiences, relationships, meanings to all our values and ourselves. Is our inner strength and our inner light. The light that we need and lights up in the darkness.
Of all the mushy talk of 'enlightened values' that we hear in our highly secularized society, I find it ironic that the movement can only legitimize itself by 'borrowing' from its predecessor, and, of course, science. We hear talk of human flourishing and so forth, that sounds very nice - but where is the metaphysical foundation for that, again? If it is morally imperative to act towards flourishing, where does that come from? Let me guess: evolution? There's a little problem, then: the answer assumes physicalism, and as such, whatever we end up chosing to do doesn't matter, since it's beyond our volitional control: if humans 'chose' to be terrible to each other, we'll end up extinct, yeah - but that's just what happens; nothing in this outcome by itself makes it immoral to work toward it - nor can we do anything about it, if the 'laws of nature' so dictate - anymore than a falling rock can say 'no' to gravity.
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming, or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
What metaphysical difference does it make if we live our lives according to the laws of causality made by nature or by God(s)? My personal reconciliation with realizing the immense probability of determinism is to focus on life from the perspective of humans rather than form whatever or whomever set the wheels of time in motion. I exist and I have limited time in this world, so what is the best use of it? To properly answer that question requires a relentless pursuit of knowledge. What I’ve learned for living the best life possible is radical acceptance of everything we have discovered collectively about being human, including that we feel best when working towards a difficult goal, especially one that helps people. That’s enough meaning for my life, even if I didn’t get to “choose” it.
@@Fractured_Unity "What metaphysical difference does it make if we live our lives according to the laws of causality made by nature or by God(s)?" That's almost a tautology: since nature isn't the same as God, one is obviously metaphysically different than the other; but to steelman that, I suppose you meant _practical_ difference. But this is just evasion: what difference does it make if we live our lives according to the mandates of our own wills or by a third party coercing us to do _its_ biding? If someone comes and orders 'jump', is your immediate response 'how high', or 'sod off'? "My personal reconciliation with realizing the immense probability of determinism" is essentially Camus' Sisyphus bullcrap, which is just self-delusion wrapped in pseudointellectual jargon. As for the "immense probability of determinism", how did you calculate it? How many Universes did you run by, or simulate, in order to get such high odds? "That’s enough meaning for my life, even if I didn’t get to “choose” it." And your meaning is meaningless, because the only reason you think it's meaningful is because the 'laws of nature' bid so, and that can't be otherwise - according to your physicalist view, anyway. All of this is mere question-begging: why is it the case that physicalism and/or determinism _must_ be true, TBW? The 'Enlightenment' styles itself as a bastion of free thought and skepticism - but funnily enough, it doesn't seem very enthusiastic, when it comes to questioning its own dogmas.
@@thstroyur I never said must, just immensely probable. Think about why you make a decision. Even though you make a choice, the reason why is because of your previous life experience informing your decision. From a metaphysical perspective, you can never make another decision than the one you did. Otherwise you would be fundamentally different than the you you’re currently experiencing. As for your assertion that you wouldn’t jump because someone told you, I find that amusing that you equate God to just someone. God or Nature doesn’t tell you to jump, you have no say in the matter. Why haven’t you stopped breathing, eating, loving, or feeling even though you didn’t do those things of your volition? Is your only defense of free will that it bruises your ego that something else is responsible for the very thing that is You? Isn’t that the whole point of the concept of a creator?
@@Fractured_Unity "Even though you make a choice, the reason why is because of your previous life experience informing your decision" That doesn't mean that decision-making _reduces_ to what one's life experience informs one - neither does it justify this 'immense probability' you speak of. We still have _one_ Universe; that's just _one_ datum point to reach that conclusion, which was reached not by data, but _metaphysical_ assumption. "As for your assertion that you wouldn’t jump because someone told you, I find that amusing that you equate God to just someone" I didn't equate God to someone; the point was to illustrate that one isn't disinterested in the causal origin behind the actions and struggles in one's life. Why should I be a good citizen, slave away in a bullshit job, provide for my family, and so on? Because society says so? Because evolution wired me so? Or because there is something about these things that make them objectively worth of my pursuit? "God or Nature doesn’t tell you to jump, you have no say in the matter" ... Except we do; God's existence does not preclude free-will - in fact, it enforces it. "Why haven’t you stopped breathing, eating, loving, or feeling even though you didn’t do those things of your volition?" You're begging the question for physicalism, there. If physicalism is true, I'm just a clump of atoms, no better than any other clump in the entire Cosmos; in particular, if I kill myself off, I'll still be a clump of atoms, no better or worse off than the previous state - so it's indifferent which one I pick (even though I don't pick anything, Nature does the job for me). But notice the conditional: _if_ physicalism is true. "Is your only defense of free will that it bruises your ego that something else is responsible for the very thing that is You?" I didn't say that's a defense of free-will; it is merely the motivation to take the question seriously, and not brush it off (“The unexamined life is not worth living.”). If I were to defend free-will itself, I'd start from defending my own philosophical view of the mind, substance dualism, because if substance dualism is true, then free-will becomes metaphysically tenable.
Mr Pinker, please listen to this episode. You'll agree that your audio engineer has boosted the level of the music-bed to ear-splitting levels and drowned out your message. Take it from me (a broadcaster): There is no need for music in shows like yours. Music distracts from your message and contributes to our national inability to focus on ideas. Please, please just talk to us. You're worth it without the frills.
I really liked this video, first because of the presenter he is interesting guy, am always doing something or other while watching TH-cam but whenever he is on the screen his Voice, don’t know but he get my full attention & I always understand 40-50% and then after 5 mins I find a very small quiet spot in office alone time Spot 😅 then watch it again. So 🅱️🎚️I am really watching many videos I take you guys seriously, I hope U guys must be sharing Honest and credible knowledge. 🙏🏽✌🏼
Yes, we've done a great job at creating and rooting the concept of human rights to the point that it would be unthinkable for any country to pass a law to reinstate slavery (for example). But the struggle to abolish slavery and to fix it into people's moral code took centuries. Homosexuality rights still have a long way to go before they're taken for granted as a general human right. Similar is the case of climate change and the environment protection. We still haven't assimilated the fact that we must regulate our conduct in order to respect other people's right to a healthy environment. I believe we're still in a very early stage of making it a human right and to stamp it into our moral code.
Game Theory may assist with some problems, but it can't determine the outcome of many human situations. There is somewhat of a cause and effect with game theory, maybe 5 or six outcomes, which is like a known uncertainty. However, life and human situations are often unknown-unknown situations where cause and effect are unrelated. This is sometimes called radical uncertainty or epistemic uncertainty. Effects are cross-causal; there is a name for this, but it escapes me now. I think named after a Nobel chemistry prize winner. An example of known uncertainty is information theory (Shannon). The inputs must be ergodic, then one can somewhat predict the statistical outcomes. Human situations are open systems, whereas game theory is somewhat a closed situation. In my opinion, game theory is not that helpful; some human situations are intractable.
"Science doesn't really know more than it did 50 years ago, or 100 years ago" Yep. Stopped watching there. That one line is so outright false and ridiculous that it completely discredits EVERYTHING else this person says. You can't just make an insane and flat out wrong claim like that and still be credible.
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming, or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
The weakest element where humans are part of is the human being in itself. The real problem is that, we humans, are emotional beings. We think we are rational, but not. We are rationally irrational, because we make decisions with emotions and very short span of information. Greetings from Mexico City
Austute analysis. Imo, the ego is the barrier to almost all things good. It's what causes our (illusionary) feeling of separation from each other and nature, our environment. ✌❤🔥
Hey, you spelled "humanity's" correctly - the first I've seen after a bunch of misspelled ones I've seen here. Not that it matters all that much when worse things like child abuses that the majority is letting and causing to happen still and more.
Anti-fragility is a system that gains from disorder, according to Nassim. Resilience is how quickly we revert to mean after a disturbance. Two different concepts. Human psyche can be resilient but can the concept of anti-fragility apply to it?
Using knowledge to solve problems is a few centuries old "Enlightenment value"? Doesn't make much sense. The very invention of warfare techniques & passing them down (not to mention coinage, taxation, bureaucracy, ancient surgical procedures, mathematics, etc.) was "using knowledge to solve problems". At a societal level, at that. And "tribalism" being problematic was addressed by various philosophers, throughout the world, since ancient times. And it still persisted post-Enlightenment (hence the World Wars, Cold War, Donald Trump, etc.) Really seems like a forced (false?) premise to be starting the video off on. Guy needs to read up on history (just about any history, really).
Why did I think this was actually about Game Theory (the yt channel with matpat) like that was the only reason I clicked on this- bro i feel stupid, i really thought matpat's game theory videos are really doing something to the world 😭
Not a win for pure rationality. See my post above on "rational irrationality." You allocate 10,000 between us, on condition that I approve the split or no one gets anything. Veto. Almost everyone does something 60/40. They anticipate the other guy's resentment of an unequal split. But the other guy should be glad for even a free 1,000 -- irrelevant if you keep 9,000. But you anticipate my "rational-irrationality and curb your own greed.
@@robertarvanitis8852 Interesting, and couldn't find your post on "rational irrationality," so maybe you could summarize or link it. Are you an expert game theorist, and can your RI method be rational if everybody practices it? Did John Nash find a win-win resolution to your counterexample, that you could show, or have you and can you?
@@leonardzane Let's play a game. You decide how we should split 10,000. Then I look at your split and say yes or no for both. How do you allocate? Most people say between 60%/40% either way. It should be ok for you to keep 9,000 and give me 1,000, because hey it's a free thousand for me! But you rationally anticipate my irrationality at perceived "injustice." As social animals, we temper our enthusiasms. So my irrationality turns out to be quite rational after all.
@@robertarvanitis8852 While not answering my queries, your belonging to MAAA hints you might be able to but are still dodging. So here's an open invitation for expert game theorists to comment here and show how to avoid zero-sum. Efharisto poli, oli.
At the end we hear Steven Pinker in a summing up using the terms: "differences in race, ....,...., ethnicity, ..." Well it is possible ofcourse to speak of different ethnic backgrounds, but are there different races? Isn't there only one race, the human race?
The biggest problem is that the world's democracies use primitive voting methods that count at most one majority. A truly democratic voting method would count all of the head-to-head majorities. With primitive voting methods, the one majority that gets counted can often be a coalition of minorities, for example the minority who want to ban abortions + the minority who want to deport people of color + the minority who oppose regulation of guns + the minority who want to slash corporate taxes & capital gains taxes + the minority who oppose environmental protections, etc. Game theory analysis shows that if all of the head-to-head majorities were counted, it would create a strong incentive for politicians to support majority-preferred policies, and on more issues. It would also effectively eliminate spoiling, quickly end "two parties, one nominee per party" systems, reliably defeat extremists, quickly end political polarization, settle issues, and allow future elections to focus on new issues. The importance of counting multiple head-to-head majorities is understood by the most widely used, most frequently used voting method: the Robert's Rules procedure for voting on motions. Robert's Rules counts N-1 head-to-head majorities to eliminate N-1 of the N alternatives (similar to a single elimination tournament in sports). That's what makes Robert's Rules reasonably effective at defeating minority-preferred alternatives. It's well understood by economists and political scientists that the solution to "tragedy of the commons" problems is for government to regulate the use of the commons (in an equitable manner). That policy is also preferred by a majority of voters. So the way to solve this problem (and many other problems) is to elect politicians by counting all the head-to-head majorities. All of the head-to-head majorities can be counted using a single round of voting in which each voter expresses his/her order of preference. (There's no need for primary elections or runoffs.) The order of finish should be constructed by processing the majorities one at a time, from largest majority to smallest majority, placing each majority's more-preferred candidate (or party) ahead of their less-preferred candidate (or party) in the order of finish.
I see the entire scheme as the scam that I know it is! And I want it abolished for an actual reasonable way of life that I also know everyone actually needs right now!!!
you can wrap youself in that feel good speech, however slavery worldwide is just as prevalant, as well as famine, political upheavel, imagration and migration, and just flat out human and corp. greed, and my cup is half full,,,,
Before i answer i need to know who you are in the conversation to trully understand the meaning of your every word. R U NEGOTIATOR that connect both sides and upgrading the dialogue between sides or r U hostage keeper, the one who wants something from me. This is fundamental question for me to understand correctly situation and your words, also to unique other mistakes in negotiations in future.
I agree that the world as such is seeking for rationality and is becoming more and more rational as a whole, but the examples he shows do not confirm this thesis.
I find him disgusting, but I also find the majority disgusting as well. I only interact because I have to and I want the majority to stop letting and causing harm and worse to continue.
Now we only need more scientists to see that currently science also is not void of problems and that conceived notions on what is right or wrong might also be based on an ideological tug of war and the supposed practitioners of the scientific method also sometimes even seem to descent into cult-like realms.
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
@@iche9373 Would it be a bad idea to vouch in favor of strengthening the sense that self-reflection and trying to be aware of one's own biases (or for some even almost dogmatic behavior)? It does look like that it could be beneficial for science (especially in a rather polarized society; scientists are still humans after all) ... I don't think it is wise to let politics steer or abuse science to get it's way. Fact seeking, facts, and logic are important. Open debate and therefore freedom to draw conclusions for oneself and share ideas also is, in my opinion. One could say that the scientific way therefore is somewhat "universalist" and beyond politics. But as I said, scientists are human and therefore bound to have biases, I only wish more of them would be aware of that (which is also true for the rest of humanity I guess).
@@thebeatclinic9000 of course not all of science. But some recent events show in my opinion that various figureheads of science and politics (and in-between) don't act in a very scientific way but came across as unaware of their bias and even a bit dogmatic in a sense. Say more like an echo-chamber situation combined with the will to force their view on the rest. I think we might be better off with more of an idea-lab kind of situation and freedom to decide for oneself. I don't, for example, think it is wise to let politics or big corporations steer or abuse science to get their way..
Where people become more and more identical or even interchangeable? And you then don't have to pay a lot of money or even anything to people that could make advancements? If all are completely interchangeable there are few if any advancements. Y' get what y' pay for.
What's an example of the tragedy of the commons that you hope we move past?
"Reflect upon the Past.
Embrace your Present.
Orchestrate our Futures."
-- Artemis
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end.
Destination known, my mind’s journey now begins.
Upon my chariot, heart and soul’s fate revealed.
In time, all points converge, hope’s strength re-steeled.
But to earn final peace at the universe’s endless refrain,
We must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
Bank runs. Safer for every individual to put money elsewhere, but if everyone does the bank fails.
@@gkwilly716 Particularly fitting rn
Example : The realization of global resources is limited and is not forever, and humanity makes the changes to preserve and protect it. We conserve it in a safe uncapitalized way that only benefits humanity instead of wealthy. The global wealth divide is getting bigger and bigger and we are developing a problems in our global free market system with corruption and greed being hidden more.
You should check out Elinor Ostrom's "Governing the Commons" This shows that people can share common resources without depleting them if they agree to enforce common rules.
This should be an hour video, going into detail, and explaining more about it.
I do think that 4 mins is not enough, yet great topic, I never knew about the game theory, and now I do.
Fun fact: my thesis paper, was against Steven Pinker, because I did not agree that the world is making progress as he claims.
What is funny is, later after a year from writing that, I read two of his books, and now I'm one of his biggest fans, because I do think he is own to something.
That is the power of reading and trying to have an open mind.
Good news: we're releasing the full hour-long interview on Wednesday 😀. And that's a great story, thanks for sharing!
The Better Angels of our Nature is one of my favourite books I've ever read purely because of how it shifted my perception of civilization and humanity. An astounding work of literature.
Theres an excellent video by Veritassium on Game Theory that looks into in depth.
I thought the same.@tf-lv4zu
@tf-lv4zu He didn't read his POPULAR books. Do you think Bohr, Heisenberg etc waited for Einstein to publish his book for laypeople to argue about his theory of Relativity? Yeah, its definitely called research for a reason, lol.
To the tragedy of the commons, I might also include the bystander effect. Things we would all benefit from working on.
The only Problem is identity politics.
Oh, the whiff of irony is slight yet overwhelming here
I agree - bystander effect
Humanity’s biggest problem is the arrogance of self belief and the inflection of it onto others.
I concur live and let live but at the end everyone suffers from a higher sense of self
Yes exactly. Social media has ruined society as a whole. People take a picture of themselves and expect the world to see it. Just the click of a button makes people think they are so gifted and special. Comparable to spoiled rotten children.
Arrogance just in itself is a disaster.
Are you a god believer?
I wouldn't go as far as to say humanities biggest problem but definitely the biggest problem in politics today
3:53 not sure about that last one... the saying goes that, in times of universal availability of knowledge, ignorance is a choice, and I see too many people choose ignorance.
Being informed involves work. Being stupid is *much* easier
I think you're right. That has to do with our comfort society. Too complacent with a life we hate because changing it is perceived as harder. Ignorance is easier, but worse for you. People love to "turn their brains off" and they know they're doing it. I ask people why, and I never understand their explanations. It seems that pure ignorance is neutral, but choosing ignorance is the same as killing 5 people in the trolley problem. People need to stop killing the metaphorical 5 people every single day, and choose to kill 1 person (again, metaphor) even if the thought makes them uncomfortable because it's worth it. We need more cognitive empathy, ironically the kind of empathy that sociopaths tend to be high in.
the problem is that these "liberal" ideas tend to minimize the impact of the environment, of material conditions. If you are born in poverty, and during your childhood your main concern is to survive, little time is available for "enlightenment" (even today thousands of children are working, or die from complications of malnutrition). The practical results of "game theory" ideas on many social issues, is rampant individualism ..."they are doomed by meritocracy"
There are also way too many cases where there's a strong cultural incentive to remain ignorant - usually from within one's own community or friend circle.
@@pedrova8058 Meritocracy saved my family from generations of serfdom and poverty. Having left an Eastern block country first controlled by absolute rule of monarchy then tyranny of communism my grand parents came to America where their hard work and intelligence paid off! The next generation and the next even more so. We are all professionals or entrepreneurs so the system of meritocracy served us well. Now we are being told we genocided the indigenous populations 🤔Interesting since we lived elsewhere when that occurred. We are also being told we are “privileged” due to our skin colour 😳🤔Again interesting as our family has worked hard and sacrificed all our lives here in America. Nothing presumed or handed to us and yet we must accept that label? 😤🤔🤔🤔🤔Something is amiss!
2:42 reminds me of a quote from Captain Jean-Luc Picard in *Star Trek: The Next Generation* on prioritizing truth, _"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth! It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based. And if you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don't deserve to wear that uniform!"_
Cpt. Picard is basically an Universalist.
who ever created Star Trek universe and now writing for the series are amazingly intelligent people. i loved that there are people other than me who take Star Trek serious.
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
Since many people lie with abandon, including to themselves, please realize "personal truth" or the more frequent "my truth" may have no relation to actual truth beyond mere coincidence.
But that’s just a theory. A humanity theory! Thanks for watching!
I would love to see an example of a mathematical model/simulation of game theory applied to the social sciences like this such as to an area of the economy or to the city transportation like in the example. Everyone’s best interests can be compatible and seen to in a humanistic way.
There is no such thing as everyone best interest the word is selfish i like how you stupid people thing we all align and want the same thing that so foolish and childless.😂😂
there are some people who do that on the "GAMETHEORY" subreddit, though i'm not sure how accurate they all are though cause i personally more enjoy the philosophical/political aspect of game theory as i have very minimal interest in math but am alright at discussing verbal ideas.
i don't mean for this to sound anti-math at all as i am massively appreciative of the people who do the real applicative work, but i often wonder if sometimes the math in game theory could miss some majorly influencing unforeseen variables which exist in the real world.
i personally believe that knowing basic narrative ideas from history or even fictional books can be a simpler way for most people to learn very possible fundamental cause and effect relationships of social events, and how we might be able to "predict" when one may be close to happening as there will be an increasing pattern of observation of similarities to the learned ideals, such as the general ideals of "extremist authority", and how it generally looks like a restriction of very basic freedoms.
i also feel narrative/history education could help in ensuring that nationalist logicians aren't just trying to win battles with cold logical math, but are also intend to increase survivability around the world as a whole as is the name of the game of life. this may include purposefully surrendering a battle because of an awareness that they are fighting for people who represent wanting to decrease the survivability of other people (or even animals if you consider forfeiting deforestation or something similar as an act of surrendering to animals so that they may survive.)
@@ImHeadshotSniper I actually agree with you, thank you for the rare and interesting reply
@@hwway4488 i really appreciate you taking the time to read it! i seem to drag on for a bit too long sometimes :P
If Mankind is only about striving for its own interest, then it's not better than an animals. Because animals are only following interests.
the world needs more enlightenment humanism. As Pinker said, we all want and need a food water, warmth etc. I think there is a most efficient model where everyone gets those things(through technological applications; for example ease of "creating" food today vs. 2000 years ago) instead of competing and hoarding them. Im rooting for us
'Communism 2.0' is the way to go then. I'm not sure it is possible to send BILLIONS in the name of NATO and the US, to aid Ukraine at war against Russia, and at the same time send BILLIONS to help generate the basic needs (which also have a relevant cost) for people that really needs them for surviving & thriving. Look at what the fellow President of Brazil, Lula, answered to the German Chancellor, Scholz, when the latter asked the former to send weapons to Ukraine along with other NATO allies: 'Our only War is against Hunger.' (something similar).
This is the way to think right.
you should read marxist writings if you're looking for alternatives to competition and hoarding
@@jacobjones630 what alternative did Marx offer?
@@Ben-s3y2h Public ownership of the means of production. You can't hoard what you don't own and you also can''t use it in competition or compete for it.
I agree. Matpat may just be able to explain humanity's biggest problems.
I was looking for this comment.
@@spaceman4313 I was too so I thought I would make it myself lol.
Dude I totally thought that’s what he meant too lol
thats what i thought this video was about lmao but fr he will solve everything
Yea I was totally trying to find this comment
Downplaying the value, role and impact of emotions and feelings in all the progress thats been made as well as the upheaval that's been created. Somethings were changed, not because we thought they were horrible but because we felt they were horrible. Rational though and action are one part of the human puzzle and not the whole of it
There is no such thing as "human progress". It is an illusion of the highly civilized, detached from reality mind (mostly left brain thinking).
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming, or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
Well said. I've often felt this way. Rational thought must be weighted with emotion to make it Real.
Yes BEAUTIFUL MINDS are being drowned out by the insanity of “ othering “ for power grabs. Divided the earth goes down in flames…the final lose/lose.
Gosh, I had forgotten what a bright light of hope Steven is…I have got to dust of a couple of his books and reinvigorate myself!
Humanity's biggest problems are the same as they have always been: selfishness and dishonesty.
I don't see our present day threats and challenges [just] where this presenter sees them, and I don't see "progress" where sees it. I do see game theory being played out globally by different sets of factors and variables.
Can game theory modified to include irrational behavior? I don't think people usually think rationally.
When you assume people think rationally, it will give a big contradiction, practically and even theoretically.
See my post on "rational irrationality" That's how retaliation preserves cooperation.
Actually base rationality can produce more harm than say unreciprocated altruism. It's part of our animal behavior to be self preserving, hence rational.. even ants act rationally
1:23 board is set up incorrectly (king and queen should be flipped) and black is based for playing the symmetrical grob.
The problem with Game Theory is that it assumes all players will be motivated only by their own self-interest, without regards to the greater good. With this assumption, we are guaranteed to be doomed.
No. Self-interest is a only place to begin. Then we sacrifice for good reason, like two kids or eight cousins...
What makes you think game theory isn’t entirely flexible with its variables?
In the sense that homo sapiens have always been "explorers", seekers of facts, one would hope that [facts] "truth" is far more important than personal "feelings". All through childhood and even into a state of maturity we are always reminded and encouraged to "learn to control our emotions". As an undergraduate majoring in Sociology I had the fortune of Game Theory study, except then where I was in university it was taught as a slight variant referred to as "Exchange Theory". It "woke" me to a new understanding of human social intercourse.
The truth has been known for decades. Attempts to communicate it also has. Why do people choose ignorance? I believe it's because they're selfish and not nudged properly where compassion becomes easier than purposeful ignorance of complacency.
This video was ok. I enjoyed it, but wish it was longer & more in depth, as it just seemed to scratch the surface with a general overview. Does the word rational insinuate that logic must be backed by math? Is it illogical or irrational if personal logic or rationale is based on beliefs? Does finding common ground mean that people/a person is being rational by establishing a "more correct" answer? Does a "more correct" answer really differ from a black & white answer if the outcome is the same?
This video is a small excerpt from the 1 hour 20 minute long video he has on "Rationality." You can find it on BigThink's channel or just search for it.
Was this talk delivered to this channel, or, is there a full talk that one can access? Link to that?
This man's biggest mistake was asking a shriek for a coffee.
1:33 the image is disturbing, why use AI?
Humanity's biggest problem is that Earth sits in a prime location for an intergalactic expressway.
Not if you have a Thumb...
Sadly, very many Americans seem to be actually proud to be "ignorant" of huge branches of knowledge, common sense or wisdom. And it seems true that knowledge or even wisdom is not the panacea that knowledgeable and wise people sometimes make them out to be. There are times to best let them go and just live intuitively or passively. Instead, I wish our institutions of learning would emphasize the PARADOXES present in all aspects of life.
We don't need to be, and indeed we are each not, completely smart, wise beyond our years, funny as Robin Williams (RIP), beloved as Tom Hanks, attractive or not, rich or poor, inspired or not, creative or not, committed or not. We are almost all in a middle somewhere and there's no report card after school encouraging us to study or be more. In fact, (another general statement) most people seem to reduce their ambitions once they have a kid.
So I think it might be better, given all these ambiguities, mixed feelings and missing information, that we should study paradox from grade school and get comfortable with our ignorance and that truth itself depends on our perspectives and theories of mind.
I'll like your comment for the most part, but from decades of experience I think you're wrong to claim that there are "knowledgeable and wise people" right now, if ever because if there were I'm pretty sure the majority of us would be practicing actual reasonableness - which is my claim that nobody is actually reasonable nor ending harming and doing worse to innocent and helpless children that I also know for an absolute fact that the majority is horrifically doing.
I also don't think you're right about "We are almost all in a middle somewhere", because child abuses are still happening by the majority and pretty much always rule anyone calling them out are crazy or something. In fact, my children and I having been and still being tortured and harmed on purpose, even after saying no and stop, I believe this so-called way of life is in fact barbaric and a scam.
And I don't exactly know what you mean by "paradox" study right now, I just think something more simple would be better to address, like coming to an even basic agreement about what actual an actual reasonable person would be like? And something that the harmed & harmful if not corrupt majority or at least most of it could learn too?
In my opinion, humanism is facing a significant crisis due to our slow progress in learning how to be better humans. While some thinkers and scientists may applaud our achievements over the past century, I believe this is a misleading and dangerous notion that conceals the many problems that disturbe our society today. Despite technological advancements, the majority of people continue to struggle with a range of issues, and it's crucial that we acknowledge and address these challenges rather than pretending they don't exist. Ultimately, I worry that our focus on positivity may be causing us to overlook the urgent need for change and improvement, and we must remain vigilant in our efforts to create a more just and equitable world. The quality of this video is only as good as the melody playing in the background. I wonder if this pleasant tune is merely a lullaby intended to lull us into a state of complacency...
I dont see how we can make it. Maybe we are headed to disgrace, and this disgrace will allow better times to come... Slowly... Until, yet, again, the harmony cannot sustain itself anymore...
Yup.
Wealth inequality is so big it might make a black hole and suck us in.
Too many religions where tribalism prevails, cultish way of thinking still makes the paradigms of most people.
And academia is leaning more into the ivory tower, favoring already priviledge people and making us believe they are the ones who suffer the most. i.e white women in Western societies.
I don't think anyone of sound mind would contend that humanity doesn't face significant challenges (climate change, inequality, authoritarianism, etc). That said, I think if you listen to people like Steven Pinker, Hans Rosling, or even Bill Gates, you learn that it is both important to work towards solving challenges, but also to take them in perspective and to acknowledge where progress is being made. Contrary to your claim of being lulled into complacency, I think the bigger problem is of paralysis on all sides due to a feeling of apocalyptic crisis. It is hard to discuss the nuts and bolts of solving our problems and negotiate between opposing groups when everyone believes that every choice is an existential one. Indeed, even though we as humans are not designed to take in suffering and change at global scales and timeframes, we are approaching a point in time when we mostly have the technology to provide relatively comfortable lives for everyone on the planet, and the remaining challenge to do so is sociopolitical.
@@simonfriedman9212 Yes you are fully right "we as humans are not designed to take in suffering and change at global scales and timeframes" maybe focusing learning those skills will help us to become better humans. We really have the technologies and the resources to change the way we life in this planet and improve life for everyone (what may sounds like an utopia) but the problem that it's complicated because we need a better social interface on a global scale and was we know that's hard to achieve when there are people that simply don't care and do exactly the opposite. People like Putin for example that just for egotist reasons make pain, suffering and war a reality on the 21st century. I don't only blame him I blame everyone including myself, because we have to stop dividing the world in small pieces and groups and factions...
Like Paulo Coelho the author?
"Wait for the bus in the rain v. drive my SUV." Not everybody has a SUV. In fact, far more people do not own a SUV than do.
The sophistry of the righteous, enlightened liberal mind knows no bounds and sees reality and logic as deadly enemies.
Many of us wait in the rain for the bus because the reality is that we not only do not own an 40,000 dollar SUV, but we can't afford the price of gas to fill a quarter of the SUV's tank.
It's the same sophist and illogical argument that got millions of healthy, disease-free people imprisoned in their own homes, which is hardly healthy anyway, for months on end in order to protect the population's health.
For some people, absurdity is a religion.
From the 2 - 3 minute mark the concept he is discussing is known as identity protective cognition. A very powerful explanation of political polarization and its resistance to reason.
When you talk about "objectively good for everyone", do you include all being capable of suffering or just humans?
I am reminded that we are no longer in a toilet paper crisis each time I see someone in your videos sitting on a big fat roll of it !!
A key component to this discussion is that there is a difference between psychology and sociology. It helps very much to know the difference; it even dissipates internal struggles sometimes.
An excellent video, Thanks BT and S. Pinker.❤
People care more about what others think about them then the truth.
It's ironic that a lecture on game theory and the human condition would overlook a basic observation on game theory and the human condition. At 3:37, Dr. Pinker says, "Humanistic values have a kind of built-in advantage when you think about them, in that they're the only things that you can defend when you have a negotiation with someone who is like you." But there is a built-in Judeo-Christian assumption here that those "like you" include all, and only, human beings -- and there is no logical justification for this reading. The fact is that some people (and some non-human creatures) are more like me than others. If I can form a dominant coalition with people who are _much_ like me, in a way that excludes a group of people _less_ like me (who those more like me intend to exploit) then the only people I have to reason with are my coalition partners. If Pinker's argument were logically valid, it would remain valid with "human" replaced by "vertebrate" -- in which case eating chicken would be the moral equivalent of cannibalism, and setting out mouse traps would be the moral equivalent of murder. The fact is that chickens and mice do not have a seat at the table because we can form a dominant coalition that excludes them from holding rights to life, liberty, and property. But logically, isn't that just what the Nazis did to the Jews, and ante-bellum Southern whites did to blacks? I think Peter Singer is a nutjob, but at least he is intellectually honest. From the standpoint of logic, either meat is murder, or some of your fellow men are fair game as prey. There's nothing logically distinctive about the word "human".
The reason I believe we should not exploit our fellow human beings is that they are children of our common Father in Heaven. But you cannot pull this Judeo-Christian principle out of the hat of secular humanism, whichever way you squirm. Like Steven Pinker and Sam Harris, I tried to do it when I was an atheist, too -- but I was intellectually honest enough to see that the attempts failed.
Great commentary, more valuable than this generic video. I'm glad I went through the comments section to find your perspective, because while I don't completely agree with it, I like that someone is criticizing Pinker, who I disagree with even more.
Selfishness is mankind's Achilles Heel
Matpat: "its just a GAME THEORY!"
what problem... humanity's problem is not everyone's problem... let the weak succumb to their failed destiny and the strong live in glory...
Cults happen and social media failures of empathy/ sympathy in good mental health ( individuals and group) ...including on 4chan. Explains much.
In my opinion human progress is attained not by the rationality of the actors but by the ability to make use of available resources. Resources is the key. when it goes dry humans become wicked when it abound humans seem good. An example what stopped the slave trade? Human ethics? No. The invention of a better slave the machines.
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
Game theory results in rule utilitarianism of the selfish without need for morality.
Simplified Game Theory Steps;
1. Betray/ Coop (one side takes advantage of the other, "fool me once")
2. Betray/ Betray (both sides fight, better than being abused, "fool me twice")
3. Coop/ Coop (both sides coop, even if they hate each other, because better than fighting)
Society would be transformed if everyone was sensitive to game theory, as well as our confirmation biases and conditioning.
If you can empathize with the Tic Tac aliens, you can see us for the struggling apes we are.
Agreed completely. Thank you 🙏🏾
I'm going to disagree with the phrase "objectively good." 2:50
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts
Good: to be desired or approved of
This phrase "objectively good" seems contradictory.
First, I consider desire or seeking approval to be a type of emotion.
Second, for something to be good, it seems that thing would require desire.
Third, an objective thing would be a thing that doesn't require desire.
Fourth, a thing cannot require desire and not require desire.
Therefore, I conclude that "objective good" is logically inconsistent.
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming, or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
As good a short introduction to the application of game theory to living better that I've ever heard.
"Our country"? What do you mean? I'm from Brazil, Dr. Pinker.
Damn Matpat grew fast 😢
Was this video about Game Theory or Enlightened Humanism?
Earth is a classroom. We come here to learn and grow. When we, as a group, are doing well, the classroom becomes a nicer place to be, temporarily. When we don't do well as a group, the classroom becomes more challenging, more difficult. We will come and go, many times, but the classroom endures. We are not here to fix the classroom. We are here to improve ourselves.
To keep the authenticity of these videos intact they should either avoid any direct example of political oppression (i.e. Russian invasion of Ukraine) or show examples from all parts of the world from present and past (i.e. current aggression of Iseael towards Palestines or previous US aggressions towards Iraq or past Vietnam war).
Otherwise while watching, it feels like these videos tell the stories of importance of knowledge, rationality and human rights on a superficial level but ultimately being slave to only the ideologies, beliefs and political stance heralded by the West.
Pah, doing what you suggest would also just show superficiality... Further, the enlightenment historic movement is based in the |West|, though neither solely nor alone. Further this video is just superficial ... Game theory the new science to explain how people behave, because we needed modern science to know how ...
@@majormononoke8958 @Major Mononoke Something originiating in the West doesn't mean this video necessarily has to be about supporting West. In fact the idea of enlightenment as the video explained is the idea that knowledge, rationality and scientific method as a whole can be used for the betterment of humankind which in itself is an objective and region-agnostic concept.
Also I don't understand how suggestion would make the video superficial. My point is to either avoid political examples or provide examples from different sides.
Lastly, obviously Gamd Theory being an answer to tackling biggest problems of humanity might be an exaggeration but Game Theory itself is a topic of applied mathematics/economics which is actually used in real life to tackle real-life strategical problems.
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming, or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
I was here to say the same. I love this channel but the bias is insane and it leads to more wars.
the channel is basically soft propaganda for the "alt right", just check any of their videos...
Pinker presumes there is an objective moral standard against which we are progressing, but gives no basis for asserting that standard. In fact, he wants a world where everyone just agrees with his moral preferences, which is just as tribal as any other bias. If someone wants to believe that competition brings the best out of humanity, neither Pinker nor game theory can objectively say why his moral standard is universally better or more advisable.
Love Steve, but not all the things that were named as such are progress.
I disagree with Pinker's "The Better Angels of
Our Nature", instead, I find Fazal's work "Dead Wrong?" to be a better outlook on the Exaggerated Reports of War’s Demise by Pinker.
Not to say he's not a good thinker, but His work often is what I'd call "the sleeping pill for the masses" . It makes you think that the world is getting safer and better to live in. It's like if the Matrix had an Agent lets say to keep the peace so you don't realize you're being used as a battery for the capitalistic machine. Agent Pinker
Values, is a universal language.
Human Rights is a Universal language.
Empathy is a Universal language.
Love is a Universal language: Respect, compassion, freedom, forgiveness. Love is root, the light, the nucleus that contains and aligns our values, health, life experiences, relationships, meanings to all our values and ourselves. Is our inner strength and our inner light. The light that we need and lights up in the darkness.
Thanks!
Of all the mushy talk of 'enlightened values' that we hear in our highly secularized society, I find it ironic that the movement can only legitimize itself by 'borrowing' from its predecessor, and, of course, science. We hear talk of human flourishing and so forth, that sounds very nice - but where is the metaphysical foundation for that, again? If it is morally imperative to act towards flourishing, where does that come from? Let me guess: evolution? There's a little problem, then: the answer assumes physicalism, and as such, whatever we end up chosing to do doesn't matter, since it's beyond our volitional control: if humans 'chose' to be terrible to each other, we'll end up extinct, yeah - but that's just what happens; nothing in this outcome by itself makes it immoral to work toward it - nor can we do anything about it, if the 'laws of nature' so dictate - anymore than a falling rock can say 'no' to gravity.
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming, or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
What metaphysical difference does it make if we live our lives according to the laws of causality made by nature or by God(s)? My personal reconciliation with realizing the immense probability of determinism is to focus on life from the perspective of humans rather than form whatever or whomever set the wheels of time in motion. I exist and I have limited time in this world, so what is the best use of it? To properly answer that question requires a relentless pursuit of knowledge. What I’ve learned for living the best life possible is radical acceptance of everything we have discovered collectively about being human, including that we feel best when working towards a difficult goal, especially one that helps people. That’s enough meaning for my life, even if I didn’t get to “choose” it.
@@Fractured_Unity "What metaphysical difference does it make if we live our lives according to the laws of causality made by nature or by God(s)?" That's almost a tautology: since nature isn't the same as God, one is obviously metaphysically different than the other; but to steelman that, I suppose you meant _practical_ difference. But this is just evasion: what difference does it make if we live our lives according to the mandates of our own wills or by a third party coercing us to do _its_ biding? If someone comes and orders 'jump', is your immediate response 'how high', or 'sod off'?
"My personal reconciliation with realizing the immense probability of determinism" is essentially Camus' Sisyphus bullcrap, which is just self-delusion wrapped in pseudointellectual jargon. As for the "immense probability of determinism", how did you calculate it? How many Universes did you run by, or simulate, in order to get such high odds?
"That’s enough meaning for my life, even if I didn’t get to “choose” it." And your meaning is meaningless, because the only reason you think it's meaningful is because the 'laws of nature' bid so, and that can't be otherwise - according to your physicalist view, anyway.
All of this is mere question-begging: why is it the case that physicalism and/or determinism _must_ be true, TBW? The 'Enlightenment' styles itself as a bastion of free thought and skepticism - but funnily enough, it doesn't seem very enthusiastic, when it comes to questioning its own dogmas.
@@thstroyur I never said must, just immensely probable. Think about why you make a decision. Even though you make a choice, the reason why is because of your previous life experience informing your decision. From a metaphysical perspective, you can never make another decision than the one you did. Otherwise you would be fundamentally different than the you you’re currently experiencing.
As for your assertion that you wouldn’t jump because someone told you, I find that amusing that you equate God to just someone. God or Nature doesn’t tell you to jump, you have no say in the matter. Why haven’t you stopped breathing, eating, loving, or feeling even though you didn’t do those things of your volition? Is your only defense of free will that it bruises your ego that something else is responsible for the very thing that is You? Isn’t that the whole point of the concept of a creator?
@@Fractured_Unity "Even though you make a choice, the reason why is because of your previous life experience informing your decision" That doesn't mean that decision-making _reduces_ to what one's life experience informs one - neither does it justify this 'immense probability' you speak of. We still have _one_ Universe; that's just _one_ datum point to reach that conclusion, which was reached not by data, but _metaphysical_ assumption.
"As for your assertion that you wouldn’t jump because someone told you, I find that amusing that you equate God to just someone" I didn't equate God to someone; the point was to illustrate that one isn't disinterested in the causal origin behind the actions and struggles in one's life. Why should I be a good citizen, slave away in a bullshit job, provide for my family, and so on? Because society says so? Because evolution wired me so? Or because there is something about these things that make them objectively worth of my pursuit?
"God or Nature doesn’t tell you to jump, you have no say in the matter" ... Except we do; God's existence does not preclude free-will - in fact, it enforces it.
"Why haven’t you stopped breathing, eating, loving, or feeling even though you didn’t do those things of your volition?" You're begging the question for physicalism, there. If physicalism is true, I'm just a clump of atoms, no better than any other clump in the entire Cosmos; in particular, if I kill myself off, I'll still be a clump of atoms, no better or worse off than the previous state - so it's indifferent which one I pick (even though I don't pick anything, Nature does the job for me). But notice the conditional: _if_ physicalism is true.
"Is your only defense of free will that it bruises your ego that something else is responsible for the very thing that is You?" I didn't say that's a defense of free-will; it is merely the motivation to take the question seriously, and not brush it off (“The unexamined life is not worth living.”). If I were to defend free-will itself, I'd start from defending my own philosophical view of the mind, substance dualism, because if substance dualism is true, then free-will becomes metaphysically tenable.
We can purchase the same boots as Pinker - Progress.
Unfortunately, we are doomed.
Mr Pinker, please listen to this episode. You'll agree that your audio engineer has boosted the level of the music-bed to ear-splitting levels and drowned out your message. Take it from me (a broadcaster): There is no need for music in shows like yours. Music distracts from your message and contributes to our national inability to focus on ideas. Please, please just talk to us. You're worth it without the frills.
I really liked this video, first because of the presenter he is interesting guy, am always doing something or other while watching TH-cam but whenever he is on the screen his Voice, don’t know but he get my full attention & I always understand 40-50% and then after 5 mins I find a very small quiet spot in office alone time Spot 😅 then watch it again. So 🅱️🎚️I am really watching many videos I take you guys seriously, I hope U guys must be sharing Honest and credible knowledge. 🙏🏽✌🏼
Yes, we've done a great job at creating and rooting the concept of human rights to the point that it would be unthinkable for any country to pass a law to reinstate slavery (for example). But the struggle to abolish slavery and to fix it into people's moral code took centuries. Homosexuality rights still have a long way to go before they're taken for granted as a general human right.
Similar is the case of climate change and the environment protection. We still haven't assimilated the fact that we must regulate our conduct in order to respect other people's right to a healthy environment. I believe we're still in a very early stage of making it a human right and to stamp it into our moral code.
I really came to this video expecting Matpat to get roasted
Game Theory may assist with some problems, but it can't determine the outcome of many human situations. There is somewhat of a cause and effect with game theory, maybe 5 or six outcomes, which is like a known uncertainty. However, life and human situations are often unknown-unknown situations where cause and effect are unrelated. This is sometimes called radical uncertainty or epistemic uncertainty. Effects are cross-causal; there is a name for this, but it escapes me now. I think named after a Nobel chemistry prize winner.
An example of known uncertainty is information theory (Shannon). The inputs must be ergodic, then one can somewhat predict the statistical outcomes.
Human situations are open systems, whereas game theory is somewhat a closed situation.
In my opinion, game theory is not that helpful; some human situations are intractable.
Greed is by far humanities greatest problem.
3:19 Curing diseases on TV is very much still a thing
Hey it a theory. A game theory. Thanks for watching.
Love me some MatPat
But, HEY THAT'S JUST A- wait... No.
This is just something popping up. Why would I do it intentionally??
I wanted to solve the problem too. Why would I making problems for myself?
"Science doesn't really know more than it did 50 years ago, or 100 years ago"
Yep. Stopped watching there. That one line is so outright false and ridiculous that it completely discredits EVERYTHING else this person says. You can't just make an insane and flat out wrong claim like that and still be credible.
Ain't that the truth! Well at least we made it this far... for now! Continue your good work! 👍
İ dont support any side in war
İ hope for peace
But thinking that putin started war just because of avenging humilitation or glory
İs just ridiculous
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming, or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
I don't know if that was right or not, still saying that saying that thing in this video is ridicolous and even dangerous.
If everyone takes a shortcut then it’s no longer a shortcut
The weakest element where humans are part of is the human being in itself. The real problem is that, we humans, are emotional beings. We think we are rational, but not. We are rationally irrational, because we make decisions with emotions and very short span of information. Greetings from Mexico City
Austute analysis. Imo, the ego is the barrier to almost all things good. It's what causes our (illusionary) feeling of separation from each other and nature, our environment.
✌❤🔥
...and superfluous TH-cam videos...
I'll ask MatPat how he managed to explain humanity's biggest problem.
Hey, you spelled "humanity's" correctly - the first I've seen after a bunch of misspelled ones I've seen here. Not that it matters all that much when worse things like child abuses that the majority is letting and causing to happen still and more.
Most people do not think or act 'rationally'.
Anti-fragility is a system that gains from disorder, according to Nassim. Resilience is how quickly we revert to mean after a disturbance. Two different concepts. Human psyche can be resilient but can the concept of anti-fragility apply to it?
The atmosphere and the oceans are the two biggest commons on earth, both from a productivity and a waste-disposal function.
Mattpat here to save us all again
🙏🙏🙏 just found my local Rational/ humanist society meetings in 2 weeks 👍
Using knowledge to solve problems is a few centuries old "Enlightenment value"?
Doesn't make much sense.
The very invention of warfare techniques & passing them down (not to mention coinage, taxation, bureaucracy, ancient surgical procedures, mathematics, etc.) was "using knowledge to solve problems". At a societal level, at that.
And "tribalism" being problematic was addressed by various philosophers, throughout the world, since ancient times.
And it still persisted post-Enlightenment (hence the World Wars, Cold War, Donald Trump, etc.)
Really seems like a forced (false?) premise to be starting the video off on. Guy needs to read up on history (just about any history, really).
Humanity’s biggest problem is money.
Why did I think this was actually about Game Theory (the yt channel with matpat) like that was the only reason I clicked on this- bro i feel stupid, i really thought matpat's game theory videos are really doing something to the world 😭
"Sanity Now" should be written
Everyone should apply principles from this video to beliefs in this video
Hear, hear! Win-win rationality for each so often requires rationality for all of us together, and reason is the most proven way to grasp reality.
Not a win for pure rationality. See my post above on "rational irrationality."
You allocate 10,000 between us, on condition that I approve the split or no one gets anything. Veto.
Almost everyone does something 60/40. They anticipate the other guy's resentment of an unequal split.
But the other guy should be glad for even a free 1,000 -- irrelevant if you keep 9,000. But you anticipate my "rational-irrationality and curb your own greed.
@@robertarvanitis8852 Interesting, and couldn't find your post on "rational irrationality," so maybe you could summarize or link it. Are you an expert game theorist, and can your RI method be rational if everybody practices it? Did John Nash find a win-win resolution to your counterexample, that you could show, or have you and can you?
@@leonardzane Let's play a game. You decide how we should split 10,000. Then I look at your split and say yes or no for both. How do you allocate? Most people say between 60%/40% either way. It should be ok for you to keep 9,000 and give me 1,000, because hey it's a free thousand for me! But you rationally anticipate my irrationality at perceived "injustice." As social animals, we temper our enthusiasms. So my irrationality turns out to be quite rational after all.
@@robertarvanitis8852 While not answering my queries, your belonging to MAAA hints you might be able to but are still dodging. So here's an open invitation for expert game theorists to comment here and show how to avoid zero-sum. Efharisto poli, oli.
Civilization is moving slowly towards rationality. I may add something it's moving backwards
Humanist values are the only things you can defend when you are negotiating with someone who isn't like you - Steven Pinker.
What was the extent of Pinker’s relationship with Jeffery Epstein?
I would like to see monopolies dealt with, crucial infrastructure to be nationalized, and planned obsolescence replaced by the right to repair.
just exceptional. thank you !
At the end we hear Steven Pinker in a summing up using the terms: "differences in race, ....,...., ethnicity, ..." Well it is possible ofcourse to speak of different ethnic backgrounds, but are there different races? Isn't there only one race, the human race?
The biggest problem is that the world's democracies use primitive voting methods that count at most one majority. A truly democratic voting method would count all of the head-to-head majorities. With primitive voting methods, the one majority that gets counted can often be a coalition of minorities, for example the minority who want to ban abortions + the minority who want to deport people of color + the minority who oppose regulation of guns + the minority who want to slash corporate taxes & capital gains taxes + the minority who oppose environmental protections, etc.
Game theory analysis shows that if all of the head-to-head majorities were counted, it would create a strong incentive for politicians to support majority-preferred policies, and on more issues. It would also effectively eliminate spoiling, quickly end "two parties, one nominee per party" systems, reliably defeat extremists, quickly end political polarization, settle issues, and allow future elections to focus on new issues.
The importance of counting multiple head-to-head majorities is understood by the most widely used, most frequently used voting method: the Robert's Rules procedure for voting on motions. Robert's Rules counts N-1 head-to-head majorities to eliminate N-1 of the N alternatives (similar to a single elimination tournament in sports). That's what makes Robert's Rules reasonably effective at defeating minority-preferred alternatives.
It's well understood by economists and political scientists that the solution to "tragedy of the commons" problems is for government to regulate the use of the commons (in an equitable manner). That policy is also preferred by a majority of voters. So the way to solve this problem (and many other problems) is to elect politicians by counting all the head-to-head majorities.
All of the head-to-head majorities can be counted using a single round of voting in which each voter expresses his/her order of preference. (There's no need for primary elections or runoffs.) The order of finish should be constructed by processing the majorities one at a time, from largest majority to smallest majority, placing each majority's more-preferred candidate (or party) ahead of their less-preferred candidate (or party) in the order of finish.
I see the entire scheme as the scam that I know it is! And I want it abolished for an actual reasonable way of life that I also know everyone actually needs right now!!!
you can wrap youself in that feel good speech, however slavery worldwide is just as prevalant, as well as famine, political upheavel,
imagration and migration, and just flat out human and corp. greed,
and my cup is half full,,,,
Didn't know Thomas Gottschalk was such a wise man.
It’s always the desire for a better life
Humans are not like machines. The machine analogy of life is wrong and destructive.
Before i answer i need to know who you are in the conversation to trully understand the meaning of your every word.
R U NEGOTIATOR that connect both sides and upgrading the dialogue between sides or r U hostage keeper, the one who wants something from me. This is fundamental question for me to understand correctly situation and your words, also to unique other mistakes in negotiations in future.
I agree that the world as such is seeking for rationality and is becoming more and more rational as a whole, but the examples he shows do not confirm this thesis.
What a compelling man
I find him disgusting, but I also find the majority disgusting as well. I only interact because I have to and I want the majority to stop letting and causing harm and worse to continue.
Having one currency used as the measuring stick creates a tragedy of the commons situation.
Now we only need more scientists to see that currently science also is not void of problems and that conceived notions on what is right or wrong might also be based on an ideological tug of war and the supposed practitioners of the scientific method also sometimes even seem to descent into cult-like realms.
Science a cult? Nice try
So you are basically pleading for a (radical) Universalism - beyond of all identity politics from left- and right-wing..
At first glance it looks paradoxical that the phenomenon of infection by a certain ideology or idea as an example of the "tragedy of the commons", i.e. that it is rational for a person to agree with his group, and in that way the group arrives at the problem of "group-think", which is bad for everyone, is something the Pinker exhibits precisely here, he is "infected" with the idea of the Apocalyptic consequences from the Global Warming or what Russian is supposed to do to Ukraine .. let's say that in that way the video is a recursive video that is very good showing how difficult it is to escape from the "tragedy of the commons" ..
@@iche9373 Would it be a bad idea to vouch in favor of strengthening the sense that self-reflection and trying to be aware of one's own biases (or for some even almost dogmatic behavior)? It does look like that it could be beneficial for science (especially in a rather polarized society; scientists are still humans after all) ...
I don't think it is wise to let politics steer or abuse science to get it's way. Fact seeking, facts, and logic are important. Open debate and therefore freedom to draw conclusions for oneself and share ideas also is, in my opinion. One could say that the scientific way therefore is somewhat "universalist" and beyond politics. But as I said, scientists are human and therefore bound to have biases, I only wish more of them would be aware of that (which is also true for the rest of humanity I guess).
@@thebeatclinic9000 of course not all of science. But some recent events show in my opinion that various figureheads of science and politics (and in-between) don't act in a very scientific way but came across as unaware of their bias and even a bit dogmatic in a sense. Say more like an echo-chamber situation combined with the will to force their view on the rest. I think we might be better off with more of an idea-lab kind of situation and freedom to decide for oneself. I don't, for example, think it is wise to let politics or big corporations steer or abuse science to get their way..
I love this guy's words and his look. Wise professor hair, and cowboy boots.
Where people become more and more identical or even interchangeable? And you then don't have to pay a lot of money or even anything to people that could make advancements? If all are completely interchangeable there are few if any advancements. Y' get what y' pay for.