Pinker mentions that there remains a difference between written and spoken language. Transliterations, as you can easily find in interview articles combined with video/audio often show the hesitant hash we make when speaking. We signal and detect others' understanding through loads of facial and other nonverbal signals, and so the artifice of writing must have many restrictions to avoid misunderstanding not necessary in spoken language. Even Pinker's quick illustration of the the developmental concept called Theory of Mind refers to a social cognition not very necessary to other animals that still use less deceptive sensory stimuli - smell that obviate any strong advantage of ToM. So it only evolved in a species that repurposed parts of our shrunken primate olfactory memory processing, and may have contributed to the increased use of deception , which itself almost surely drove our brains to become larger, especially that frontal lobe area involved in contrafactual ideation! Social signaling is sort of a library-style spreading of information sourcing more useful to those whose exquisite molecular sensing is crippled. Although still connected - you can smell when something is wrong, goes the metaphor - we are a step or two obligate, dependent, social. All this slavery and hierarchy dustup is intimately interconnected with symbolic verbal language. As the Siberian tale goes: we have forgotten the common speech of the other animals, and need those [grammar Nazis, in a literate society] who can still interpret.
As a german I love to watch the mathematical content of Ri but I am totally lost on this one. It contains words I never heard and used puns&clichés i just don't understand.
lecture on most education is captivating and humorous I find. The world is better off learning and experiencing together rather than against one another.
Lefty Forehand I couldn't turn it off. I guess that's what we would expect from an expert writer; That being a speech that can attract and hold your attention.
"There's nothing sinister or gauche about driving on the left." sinister - (Latin) on the left side gauche - (French) left Ya gotta listen carefully to get Pinker's jokes
Thank you for uploading this wonderful lecture! As an aspiring poet and writer whose mother tongue is not English, I have always had a lot of worries and doubts about the intricacies of English - this clarified a lot of things for me!
To adapt 'grammar' as reported in (too) many news article quotes: The CM of the 2020s will say, "Myself want cookie"... Just today: "Myself and my sister went to the ..." *shakes head* (Is it that using the TWO syllable personal pronoun is thought to increase the importance of the speaker???)
I usually use straight forward prose, but when you describe a thought or a dream it's not bad to go weird and abstract, and also grammaticly slightly weirder. Love you, Steven!
37:21 there is a similar joke in Arabic I wonder if they have the same origin. the joke goes : people in prison who have nothing to pass their time tell jokes and they have memorize it all and numbered it so one goes 17 and they laughed another said 10 and they laughed another said 121 and they laughed but one of them continued to laugh for a long time they asked him why? he said this is the first time I hear this joke.
@@tsaihtsaih3275 Well, the purist would take the clause "checking into the hotel" to refer to the subject immediately following, "it", which in this case is a dummy pronoun. A more obvious use of a dangling participle is in a sentence like "Walking down the street, the trees looked beautiful to me", where one could take the phrase "walking down the street" to refer to the trees, which obviously do not walk.
@@tsaihtsaih3275 I would agree. My career involves supply chain management, I am able to interact daily with a multitude of people all over the world. My coworkers are very careful to watch our language with those that were not born in an English speaking country. Not only is English itself complicated, it is nearly impossible to explain "slang" words or phrases. Even more so since I am a native born "Southerner" from America. For me Mandarin or Arabic based languages are impossible for me to grasp or follow.
a summary of the video: we shouldn't concern ourselves so much with minor errors, but instead we should prioritize writing good prose for clear communication. more specifically, here are some helpful ideas: - classic style: language as a window on the world - coherent ordering of ideas: a web of thoughts -> a string of words - overcoming the curse of knowledge (empathize with the difficulty of learning) - factual diligence and sound argumentation
This is excellent, I have one complaint which has nothing to do with writing and is so obscure that I don't blame Pinker for not knowing this, and using it as an example of something he thinks arbitrary: Driving on the left comes from the days of fencing. You pass a person on the right (i.e. walking on the left of the pavement) so that you can draw your sword and get on guard more quickly. That's also why, traditionally, if a couple are out together, the man walks on the woman's right hand side (with her on the far left of the path); should it occur, the man can then put the woman behind him with his left hand while drawing with his right in one step. If he's on her other side, it takes two paces to get into position. It's also why we mount horses from the left; the cavalry all have to go from the same side, or one man gets his neighbour's spurs in the face as they swing into the saddle. We'd already picked left, so left it is. America trained their cavalry to mount from whichever side has the higher ground, and the spacing issues of fencing weren't a consideration by then. So they arbitrarily picked the right to drive on. Other countries that drive on the right simply dropped the archaic traditions that predicated using the left historically. Archaic, but not arbitrary.
"Other countries that drive on the right simply dropped the archaic traditions that predicated using the left historically." - I learned that that fact happened in Europe because of Napoleon and spread out in the whole world except the UK who historically opposed to France.
If you look into the history of the English language, it becomes pretty evident that a lot of fake rules prescriptivists try to enforce are not inherent to English, but are based on rules in Latin - which is why people generally ignore them. Don't end a sentence with a preposition, don't split an infinitive, etc. It is perfectly fine to do these things in English and, in most cases, don't make a sentence any less clear or understandable. In fact, a lot of things that people consider oddities of the English language can be traced back to the belief that English should utilize rules from Latin. For example, spelling. Back in the 1500s a group of people was tasked with a way to standardize the English language which, at the time, had tons of dialects and variations both in the written and spoken form. There was a lot of debate about whether a standardized spelling should aim to reflect the reality of English pronunciation or adhere as closely to Latin as possible. They chose the latter. If you've ever thought "Why is that word spelled that way?" this is likely the answer (the problem with vowels is completely different though - English vowels have shifted drastically over the past few hundred years and the spelling hasn't been updated to reflect this). Considering the time, the choice of Latin as an ideal is obvious - it's the holy language of Christianity. The belief that English should follow Latin as closely as possible lasted for a long time and has resulted in these beliefs that common usage of English is "unpure". The problem here is that English is a germanic language, not a romance one. It can't be held to the rules of Latin because it's not based on Latin.
Ryan de Klerk, nice to read a coherent response for Ince in the comment section. May you fare well and prosper in life. People like you are desperately needed.
English is both a Germanic and a romance language. Not only a huge chunk of its vocabulary comes from Latin, but also its own rules. If you look into it you'll find out that even Germanic languages are in fact heavily influenced by Latin. Also Latin has been intertwined with England way before Christianity even arrived in Europe. Latin was in England even before the "Anglo" moved there, so your way of describing Latin as a sort of intruder in the English language is completely inaccurate.
This was great. I had a lot of fun watching this presentation. It really gave me a new perspective on language and how to be simple and concise. I often struggle with what they means when people say "omit needless words" but I think I have somewhat of a feel for it now. It's a sign of greatness if a presentation manages to teach you something new I believe.
If it is oxymoronic for straight-talker to use the expression "calling a spade a spade" to describe his speech; perhaps it is also contradictory for an elegant writer to use the words "concise and precise" to describe his writing. The simpler terms are "short and accurate" as in we should strive to write in a "short and accurate" manner.
In regard to the Rabbit Illusion prose example; I would have missed the meaning altogether because I first thought of the "Rabbit Illusion" of the Rabbit or Duck illusion graphic. The stimulus referred to in the statement would have been the visual one and not the tactile one, at least in my mind. I would have been lost trying to figure out what possible "poststimulus events" they could have been talking about.
I've watched two videos of Mr. Pinker so far and I really enjoy them and make learning for me very enjoyable and easier. I have only taken a few notes. Those mainly consisting of words I'm not sure of, or words that are entirely different subjects unto themselves.
He laid out the rule for when the passive voice does work best and then followed it in this example. The "passive voice" was the subject being discussed, not "academics". It makes the group of sentences more cohesive when the subject or "object of the reader/listener's mental gaze", the passive voice, leads the following sentence rather than having the previously unmentioned actor, "academics", parachuting into the lecture out of nowhere.
We've always been taught the passive voice is "bad." Maybe in English, but in many languages the passive voice is not only not incorrect but more prominent. My personally opinion, there are many situations where the passive voice is more effective. Can't think right now, but some of the greatest quotes in the English language are in passive voice. Nothing inherently wrong with the passive voice. And is it overused? When was the last time you heard someone say "You will be killed by me?" Take any random piece of writing in the English language, from NYT, etc. you will not find a single sentence in the passive voice. So exactly, why are we so upset about this? And as regard to why used in academic papers, it is to put more emphasis on the results than the persons discovering, perhaps false modesty, but that is the style for sure, compared to normal writing.
I have to catch myself using the passive voice in essays. And usually the active voice sounds better. But, as you say, there are many situations where the passive voice is better. So it's not 'bad', no. Fiction is another 'story', it's a whole other ballgame than writing nonfiction. And a way harder one too.
STEVEN PINKER IS MY HERO. If only we could effectively communicate these ideas to everyone in the world without loss of information... I’m sure every one of them would agree. This is an incredible presentation.
I needed this lecture. Hedging has been my problem. I've thought of it as humility and prudence, but now I understand that it can be seen as an attitude that is opposite to those.
I think it can be both. Personally, I abuse hedging because I know that I don't have the necessary knowledge/understanding to speak with authority, but I think he's referring to the practice in more professional environments. It could be that the habit often arises when students are filling out word counts and covering for valid but unproductive insecurity, then mutates later. There could even be some portion of that earlier use left, long after students have proven themselves and moved on. Perhaps they focus on that old security blanket aspect, blaming it for hedging habit. It may still be technically true, then, and feel entirely true if they trace it back though life. To call it narcissistic might be intended as a bit of a wake up call, especially since his drive to fight it seems to be the counterproductive nature of hedging. For me, it's still a problem, but it is different. When I want to talk about a scientific concept, for example, I probably should come clean to the reader, just in case. It should absolutely be clear enough, but I think it's fair that I'm afraid of the worst, just in case. BUT, that doesn't mean I should be doing it all the time, every sentence, burying anything useful in heaps of heavy, rusting metal waste. Even if it isn't that dangerous, it's still clunky and hideous. And yes, I do know how much hedging I used in this comment. I've gotten better at finding the more natural path for it, over the years, but that's not a real solution, and it does twist sentences into hideous shapes. It's something I've been meaning to work harder at, and I'm thankful for this video reminding me. (and then proving the importance)
Postmodern writing really is a plague upon academic writing. I have eperienced it both as a reader and as a writer (when I wrote my thesis). For everyone who wonders why people write like that: - They think they're supposed to. Everyone else seems to do it, so I better do it, too. It's subconscious imitation. - It's fucking easy! As difficult as it is to read and understand postmodernist mumbo jumbo, it requires very little brain power to produce it. All you need is a big vocabulary. If you take a close look, you'll see that - while the vocabulary is impressive - the grammar is really primitive, and there's no sense of craftsmanship involved in the construction of sentences. - It makes trite ideas seem as if they were important. - It absolves you from the accusation of being sentimental or naive. Using words like "beautiful", especially when describing art, is academic suicide. Much better to say "conforms to aesthetic and stylistic conventions of its era". There. Now, nobody will suspect you of the heinous crime of actually enjoying art. - It strengthens your feeling of belonging to that exclusive circle of erudites. You're better than the unwashed peasants who use everyday words.
Preach it brother. Postmodernism is a blight on all disciplines. I would argue that the vocabulary isn't even really large. It's really just nominalizations and suffix-infused nonsense. You'd think that twenty years after Sokal's essay exposed them that they'd clean up their act.
This was hilarious. :D I've noticed about myself that I'm a fan of trying to give an accurate feeling, draw an accurate image of what I'm trying to say when writing. Very often something simple and straight forward like "this was hilarious" is in my opinion the most accurate way to express what I want to express. However upon considering if I should write it like that or come up with something more linguistically complex I'm faced with my stupid desire to sound erudite, elloquent, intelligent and all that jazz. Which is why I never get upvotes. :D Shit's too long.
I think there's an important difference between writing clearly and oversimplification. "Beautiful" is not the same as "conforms to aesthetic and stylistic conventions of its era". You might say "It was considered beautiful in X period", but if you are talking about aesthetics and style in great detail, the phrase might well be appropriate.
I just loved the way he described there's nothing gauche (fr) or sinister (it) about driving on the left. It really shows how even different languages are connected in a way.
Each time Steven Pinker said 'she' I realized a bit more how much I use 'he' instead of 'they' or 'she' and imagine my reader to be male. Time for some introspection..Thanks for the great lecture!
@@zviyeri9117 Either they which is the most common followed by she and he in last place. Although I grant you the disparity is not as extreme. Still it's normal for one sex/gender of humans to think primarily to themselves especially when they are thinking off the cuff or most intensely and self consciously, NOT about pronouns. And I have ZERO problems with women using she or they 100 percent of time and thus women should grant the same leeway to men. We are NOT thinking about excluding you or saying this only applies to men and not women when we use them. It's just the most natural thing to use because any given person thinks about people most like themselves first. This shouldn't be a feminist issue and people who get paranoid about this should focus on real life treatment of women end of rant.
Oca 2074, I am a woman and I prefer to use “one” or “he” for the simplicity, clarity and ease of use that it provides a writer and reader. All this gender bullshit is getting in the way of communication.
Agreed, and this problem shows up very well in software too, where muddled thinking results in ideas expressed in badly constructed, convoluted and confusing code, which may also inadvertently say the wrong thing. Clarity of thought is essential to good writing in any language.
Aaron Bowers My mind is saying, "Thank you." A few of the 'others' in there are whispering..."Busted!" Another is saying: "Don't think that punctuation is right." It's no mystery why I don't talk much. Too busy listening. BTW, there's another RI vid re our inner voice that you would find interesting, if you haven't watched it yet. Can't recall the title, but should be easy to find. Thanks for your post.
This talk contains an impressive amount of ideas! :D The one that sticked most to me was the "curst of knowledge" I thought he was going to regurgitate the same statement over and over
In the usual clear-minded way of Dr Steven Pinker, one of the most enlightening reflections on the subject of good writing, which I have taught for years in the field of legal drafting (in French language). The defense of an appropriate use of the passive voice is particularly brilliant.
38:36 I'm a professional translator. I often experience the opposite effect if I read something I wrote but have completely forgotten. More like, "Wow, that sounds good!"
I have heard positive things about Steven Pinker before and enjoy the royal institution talks greatly, so i decided to look into this, despite not being a native speaker - i had not imagined it would be this nuanced, informative AND entertaining. Accessible yet complex, what a great lecture!
Interesting synchronization, that the joke about comedians is starting at 36:47. Also when tutor is describing them, I have in my mind description for, Lost Odd Lords 0f 0bvious 0blivion. Mind is a strange place lol ..... AR
what he calls "the curse of knowledge" is the same thing I have been railing against, without that label, since I got my first computer in 1980. I expressed my frustration in a dictum that I have been restating to every software programmer I've ever known. "The person who writes the software should never be allowed to write the manual for its use and maintenance." The problem I recognized back then was, the programmer KNOWS TOO MUCH and is unable to stop making assumptions late into the instructions. Then, he compounds that by eliding over intermediate steps, often justifying that with, "well, it's obvious, isn't it?" . People giving driving directions have this failing. The late comedian Jonathan Winters nailed it with his recreation of how a local farmer back home in Southern Ohio might give directions to a stranger. "Well, ya go down the road fer a piece and then turn left where the old school house used to be."
I think one huge cause of this is students are assigned something like a 3 page paper. So we take what we have to say and add nonsense until it is three pages lol
Quite the opposite for those trained in science! We tend to write concisely, but in such horrific, yawn-inducing language. Pinker mentions this in his book. :>
Steven Pinker is one of my favourite individuals working in Academia. His humor in teaching and lectures are very funny and keep people's attention. Thus you are learning the subject he is talking about.
A very interesting talk. It’s on the english language as a whole, but it’s fascinating to find so many parts of grammar and good writing in general can be translated into writing fiction prose.
Nonfiction. Pinker couldn't write fiction to save his life. Most academics can't. No imagination. And fiction requires a different kind of thinking. It relies much more heavily on uncomfortable mysteries like intuition.
He could certainly help a writer gifted with phenomenal imagination: one may have wonderful ideas but keeping in mind some basic rules makes the experience of the reader more enjoyable. "Basic" does not mean obvious, as we all encounter texts that ignore these rules. So I don't agree that "useless word should be omitted" is an example of itself: it serves a purpose, as very often this rule is ignored. So it is obvious, but not useless.
I understand that the lecturer is a frequent public speaker and legit scientist, who prepared in advance and whose material has been built word by word over the years. However, even with that in mind, I felt so captivated by the way he presented his ideas that I felt very inadequate. Not only did it look profound, coherent and incredibly eloquent, but it also drew the audience’s attention with fun familiar scenarios. I guarantee that every person, who witnessed the presentation, envied Mr. Pinker: his knowledge, skills and most importantly his life choices and values - none of which were mentioned, but all of which were yet so apparent. Museums are teeming with fine arts of sculpture and paintings and relics, but this speech is the finest art of all. I would like to thank you, The Royal Institution of London, as well as Mr. Pinker - I no longer want to be entertained. None of the Hollywood stars shine brighter than the armor of light you wear. This light is now my beacon. I’m on my path to forge my own.
This particular brilliant lecture of the great Steven Pinker and another ethereal lecture of Larry Mcenerney, which is not in this specific youtube video, but rather in a definite different one are truly helpful in my comprehensive writing.
Great talk. BTW, my understanding is that a few hundred years ago the word literally essentially meant a hidden meaning that would only emerge after study of the text, ie akin to a *literary* meaning.
Genuine,pure & true stream of ideas is critically essential that is a field of word-play ,kick starting the enigmatic game of words unaware of losing or winning with the piece of writing at the end of game.
to whomever may be annoyed by this fabulous speech, He uses 'he' for the writer and 'she' for the reader only to not confuse the audience. He could have used the she for the writer and he for the reader just the same. 'They' puts them both together, thus nullifying the two conversating sides. He could ave used 'blue' and 'red'. Its just so it doesnt come down to the 'he said to him' confusion. Is it the reader to the writer or the other way around?
ah, that makes sense. I was confused as to why he kept on using 'she' when not referring to a specific person, but it turns out that it was a specific person that he was referring to!
If that's confusing, I suggest a return to elementary school. Your explanation overcomplicates an issue that would have otherwise been self-evident, and distracts people who don't care about manufactured social engineering issues. It turned me off to this otherwise-interesting presentation, so I'm glad he got it out of the way quickly before I spent any real time on it.
In his book the chapters alternate as to whether the writer/reader is male/female. His point about the word 'they' is that this can be used as a gender-neutral singular term, and has been by many of the best writers throughout history.
I gained significant amount of interest in writing after watching a video on the importance of writing by Dr. Jordan Peterson and ended up here. I'm glad I watched this. Really loved the content and learned a lot.
It is an interesting time line we live in. I watch the vid. Dr. Pinker recommends a book. I cruise to Amazon while the vid continues, and buy the book for Kindle. I'm reading the book before the vid goes more than 5 minutes more.
I would say it is a consumerist time we live in and decreasing attention span. You are able to buy something on impulse before you have clearly establish whether you need it, will use it or like it. You are doing two things at once and thus not paying full attention to either.
I understand why I have read two of Steven Pinker's books and never had to spend much time pondering what he meant, even if a particular issue explicated was very complicated. He learned his English in the anglo environs to be found in Montreal.
BADASS ATTITUDE OF QUOTES IN ACTION. "It is better to be clear and possibly wrong than fuzzy and not even wrong." - Steven Pinker. "It is better to be fuzzy and possibly right than simplistic and definitely wrong." - Ulysses Alvarez Laviada. The first quote assumes that clarity doesn't have shortcomings in itself. For instance, the habits of clarity develops a tendency for us to be simplistic rather than simple when the context requires it. The habits of clarity also develops the tendency for us to dismiss fuzziness when the context might require it. The second quote assumes that fuzziness doesn't have shortcomings in itself. For instance, the habits of fuzziness develops a tendency for us to be over complicated rather than complex when the context requires it. The habits of fuzziness also develops the tendency for us to dismiss clarity when the context might require it. Both quotes dismiss one ontological nature of reality, namely, anything that can show human excellence, in our case, simplicity and complexity, tend to show their natural shortcomings when either of them becomes a habit.
There's a danger in assuming that simplicity is clarity: as Einstein said (sort of: ironically, the popular "quote" is actually a simplified version of what he really said): everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. We have a serious problem in American society with the large number of people who actually believe stereotypes, false dichotomies, and other oversimplifications. They've become incapable of accurately seeing the real world, which *is* fuzzy, and full of gray areas, and they're susceptible to manipulation by people who promise them simple answers to complex problems. While it's true that lots of people need to simplify their _writing_ to achieve clarity, clear _thinking_ more often needs complexity.
The point of writing is to communicate, not to make sure you're not wrong. Sure, be fuzzy so you won't be wrong, but no one will care cause no one knows what you're trying to say.
Did you really just refer to yourself in the third person?... And then place it beside Steven Pinker as if you're his sparring partner or something... Anyways, you have a pretty major problem: clarity and fuzziness are completely different from complexity and simplicity, yet you interchange them as if they're parallels or something. Sometimes clarity is *very* simple and fuzziness is *very* complicated. Go read some Deepak Chopra quotes; you will see very quickly that what he has to say is very complicated, but very fuzzy to the point where he basically ends up saying nothing (the definition of word salad). Also, "not even wrong" is a quote from Wolfgang Pauli, and it basically expresses that something is so "fuzzy" that it's both unprovable and unfalsifiable, and therefore both "not right" and "not even wrong." I think that's what Pinker was getting at, is to curb lazy thinking and bad reasoning and strive for clear, reasoned arguments and statements.
With the sight of this audiovisual piece, I was actually astonished from the sheer incredulity or belief regarding the constant misuse of nouns and adverbs that shine for their reducible complexity. Steven Pinker rides over the shoulders of the numerous giants he quotes and understands and, despite the difficulty of comprehensively addressing linguistic style due to its inherent changing nature, is able to juggle with the knives of public criticism while shining a light over this vital issue.
I kind thought it was unfair, because it is a good example to show people how language is context-dependent on a language book, but out of context on a style writing book.
I do generally agree with his point. It comports nicely with the crux of what a filmmaker once told me: there are no original thoughts, no original ideas, only the way you present it. If you have thought of it, likely so has someone else. If in the unlikely event you are ever first, many will come after you, and some may do better at presentation. So it is, style in communication of writing to portray your persona is its own way of reaching out to the reader.
Thinking back to my college days, I find that a lot of my laborious prose was a result of minimum word counts on an essay. It is the opposite of the writing seen in the film A River Runs Though It where the father reads what his son wrote and then tells him something like, “Write it again with half as many words.” If the purpose of an essay question on an exam is to evaluate what a student has learned, let them explain to you what they learned in a way that you can understand.
Lawyers use the passove voice because often the action is important and not the subject. The passive voice legal exampke he used would not have worked in the active voice. It didn't matter who paid, only that the debt was paid. The law takes things literally, you woulf either have to state all possible subjects or use the passive voice instead.
To put it simply: write as your grandma recited a story to put you to sleep as a child. Don't write like an academic. This is the best way to write a story
I love this. I remember watching "The Civil War" by Ken Burns and he included texts from a young girl's diary circa 1860ish and her prose was so moving compared to that of today.
Here are important key points from the lecture: The rationale behind employing Passive Sentences 28:54 A thought-provoking discussion on the curse of knowledge 31:26
I once spent 6 Months changing Form Letters written in Military Speak into Form Letters written in Plain English. A Year later, the change back into Military Speak from Plain English only took Me an Afternoon, because I had copies of all the original Military Speak Form Letter On File and all I had to do was some Printing and Restocking.
How is 41:10 an error? Singular they? I was scholared under Oxford rules of English grammar and the use of “they” meaning “he or she” was perfectly acceptable and encouraged when the gender is irrelevant or unknown. Edit: having finished watching the video - he still names it a grammatical mistake which is permissible due to frequent use. Kind of contradictory. I’m sure same as I, many of the listeners of the talk will not have heard of such usage supposedly being deemed incorrect.
Is "scholar" now considered a verb under Oxford rules? I didn't know that. If the gender of a singular subject or object is, as you say, irrelevant or unknown, I see no reason beyond the whining of some feminists not to continue using the default "he" or "him" in sentences where "it" is clearly inappropriate. Instead of a crusade to renovate the English language, why don't women take up a real cause: ban chemically adjusted men from competing in women's sports.
On the avoidance of unnecessary qualifiers like "somewhat", he says that Classic Style assumes "Not everything has to be stated with absolute precision." I instantly recognized that I overuse those words [somewhat]. I am a programmer. Code and the documents describing the work to be done have to be written precisely. Ambiguity in the requirements often leads to a team of people wasting time in rewriting (and retesting). The code itself must be even more precise. I'll try not to let my conversation to sound like my work product.
Thanks to some linguistically gifted fans, we now have English and Spanish subtitles for this video. Many thanks and gracias!
Is there a simple word transcript of this somewhere or just the captions?
Pinker mentions that there remains a difference between written and spoken language. Transliterations, as you can easily find in interview articles combined with video/audio often show the hesitant hash we make when speaking.
We signal and detect others' understanding through loads of facial and other nonverbal signals, and so the artifice of writing must have many restrictions to avoid misunderstanding not necessary in spoken language.
Even Pinker's quick illustration of the the developmental concept called Theory of Mind refers to a social cognition not very necessary to other animals that still use less deceptive sensory stimuli - smell that obviate any strong advantage of ToM.
So it only evolved in a species that repurposed parts of our shrunken primate olfactory memory processing, and may have contributed to the increased use of deception , which itself almost surely drove our brains to become larger, especially that frontal lobe area involved in contrafactual ideation!
Social signaling is sort of a library-style spreading of information sourcing more useful to those whose exquisite molecular sensing is crippled.
Although still connected - you can smell when something is wrong, goes the metaphor - we are a step or two obligate, dependent, social. All this slavery and hierarchy dustup is intimately interconnected with symbolic verbal language.
As the Siberian tale goes: we have forgotten the common speech of the other animals, and need those [grammar Nazis, in a literate society] who can still interpret.
As a german I love to watch the mathematical content of Ri but I am totally lost on this one. It contains words I never heard and used puns&clichés i just don't understand.
get: The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century by Steven Pinker. This talk is based on it
Thank you a lot for this information.
I would never have thought that a lecture on linguistics might turn out to be so fascinatingly captivating and humorous
lecture on most education is captivating and humorous I find. The world is better off learning and experiencing together rather than against one another.
Vadim "fascinatingly captivating" is redundant. Has Steve taught you NOTHING??!!
Lefty Forehand I couldn't turn it off. I guess that's what we would expect from an expert writer; That being a speech that can attract and hold your attention.
Linguistics are the sweet, sweet loops i eat in the morning
Nor did I but this man doesn't seem to be an ordinary linguistics professor.
"Avoids cliches like the plague"
Love it.
It's like when Plato uses rhetoric to say how evil rhetoric is
He uses "the lunatics are running the asylum". xD
Dustin Watkins you did not get the joke.
Updated for 2020:
"Avoid cliches like the coronavirus"
Hi, I'm from 2020
We're not laughing anymore
"There's nothing sinister or gauche about driving on the left."
sinister - (Latin) on the left side
gauche - (French) left
Ya gotta listen carefully to get Pinker's jokes
A left handed compliment
I read somewhere that the ancient Greek held puns in high regard. Now I understand why.
False cognates. It all began in The Court Of The King Of France.
I am left amazed
@fynes leigh ??? This sentence seems to contradict itself?
I virtually admire Steven Pinker
I admire Steven Pinker, virtually.
so close!
Steven Pinker is admired by me, virtually.
I litteraly admire him and have read virtually all of his books.
Shouldn't that be _Steven Pinker is virtually admired by me._ ?
Thank you for uploading this wonderful lecture! As an aspiring poet and writer whose mother tongue is not English, I have always had a lot of worries and doubts about the intricacies of English - this clarified a lot of things for me!
Same here mate.
@@sankeolsimicklepcha9703
Me three !
What is your 1st language, if you don't mind my asking ?
@@residentenigma7141 Indian Nepali. Though I am not from Nepal but Darjeeling, India.
@@sankeolsimicklepcha9703
Thanks.
I'm Australian and this lecture gave me much insight into writing prose in my own language.
I think there must be a lot of research done about Steven's fabulous hair.
About your hair too. How do you access internet ?
Ameer Fazal
sea turtles, mate.
Indeed.
Was RFC 2549 amended to include aquatic carriers?
I'm not sure, but if you screw it up the implementation, you get error 418.
"Bureaucracy speaks in gibberish to avoid responsibility."
Sadly, this is true
And they fool the masses.............effortlessly
Word salad from politicians speaking and saying nothing
They also repurposed the original intent of words ex: A well organized militia.
40:00 Au contraire, the Cookie Monster's signature line is "om nom nom nom" (and his usage is flawless).
To adapt 'grammar' as reported in (too) many news article quotes: The CM of the 2020s will say, "Myself want cookie"...
Just today: "Myself and my sister went to the ..."
*shakes head* (Is it that using the TWO syllable personal pronoun is thought to increase the importance of the speaker???)
I usually use straight forward prose, but when you describe a thought or a dream it's not bad to go weird and abstract, and also grammaticly slightly weirder. Love you, Steven!
37:21 there is a similar joke in Arabic I wonder if they have the same origin. the joke goes : people in prison who have nothing to pass their time tell jokes and they have memorize it all and numbered it so one goes 17 and they laughed another said 10 and they laughed another said 121 and they laughed but one of them continued to laugh for a long time they asked him why? he said this is the first time I hear this joke.
whts wrong with the sentense :checking into the hotel, it was nice to ......
Steven said its a dangling participate,but i dont get the point.
@@tsaihtsaih3275 Well, the purist would take the clause "checking into the hotel" to refer to the subject immediately following, "it", which in this case is a dummy pronoun. A more obvious use of a dangling participle is in a sentence like "Walking down the street, the trees looked beautiful to me", where one could take the phrase "walking down the street" to refer to the trees, which obviously do not walk.
@@tsaihtsaih3275 the participle must match the subject. The subject of this sentence is "it", and "it" wasn't checking into the hotel
哎呀我去，thats the english？how stubborn english is。@@maxim_ml
@@tsaihtsaih3275 I would agree. My career involves supply chain management, I am able to interact daily with a multitude of people all over the world. My coworkers are very careful to watch our language with those that were not born in an English speaking country. Not only is English itself complicated, it is nearly impossible to explain "slang" words or phrases.
Even more so since I am a native born "Southerner" from America.
For me Mandarin or Arabic based languages are impossible for me to grasp or follow.
a summary of the video: we shouldn't concern ourselves so much with minor errors, but instead we should prioritize writing good prose for clear communication. more specifically, here are some helpful ideas:
- classic style: language as a window on the world
- coherent ordering of ideas: a web of thoughts -> a string of words
- overcoming the curse of knowledge (empathize with the difficulty of learning)
- factual diligence and sound argumentation
This is excellent, I have one complaint which has nothing to do with writing and is so obscure that I don't blame Pinker for not knowing this, and using it as an example of something he thinks arbitrary:
Driving on the left comes from the days of fencing. You pass a person on the right (i.e. walking on the left of the pavement) so that you can draw your sword and get on guard more quickly. That's also why, traditionally, if a couple are out together, the man walks on the woman's right hand side (with her on the far left of the path); should it occur, the man can then put the woman behind him with his left hand while drawing with his right in one step. If he's on her other side, it takes two paces to get into position. It's also why we mount horses from the left; the cavalry all have to go from the same side, or one man gets his neighbour's spurs in the face as they swing into the saddle. We'd already picked left, so left it is.
America trained their cavalry to mount from whichever side has the higher ground, and the spacing issues of fencing weren't a consideration by then. So they arbitrarily picked the right to drive on. Other countries that drive on the right simply dropped the archaic traditions that predicated using the left historically.
Archaic, but not arbitrary.
Oh, and by the way we also explained the English how they could use the decimal system. It came as a great revelation to them. Never too late!
A true master class.
"Other countries that drive on the right simply dropped the archaic traditions that predicated using the left historically." - I learned that that fact happened in Europe because of Napoleon and spread out in the whole world except the UK who historically opposed to France.
@@renesurkova7099 that support the badass hastings survivors who rendezvous with the varangians at their last stand kings and generals salute
Is this one of the proposed etymology or the widely accepted one?
This video came up in the recommendations, and I was hooked from the very first minute. What a captivating speaker !
If you look into the history of the English language, it becomes pretty evident that a lot of fake rules prescriptivists try to enforce are not inherent to English, but are based on rules in Latin - which is why people generally ignore them. Don't end a sentence with a preposition, don't split an infinitive, etc. It is perfectly fine to do these things in English and, in most cases, don't make a sentence any less clear or understandable.
In fact, a lot of things that people consider oddities of the English language can be traced back to the belief that English should utilize rules from Latin. For example, spelling. Back in the 1500s a group of people was tasked with a way to standardize the English language which, at the time, had tons of dialects and variations both in the written and spoken form. There was a lot of debate about whether a standardized spelling should aim to reflect the reality of English pronunciation or adhere as closely to Latin as possible. They chose the latter. If you've ever thought "Why is that word spelled that way?" this is likely the answer (the problem with vowels is completely different though - English vowels have shifted drastically over the past few hundred years and the spelling hasn't been updated to reflect this).
Considering the time, the choice of Latin as an ideal is obvious - it's the holy language of Christianity. The belief that English should follow Latin as closely as possible lasted for a long time and has resulted in these beliefs that common usage of English is "unpure". The problem here is that English is a germanic language, not a romance one. It can't be held to the rules of Latin because it's not based on Latin.
Ryan de Klerk, nice to read a coherent response for Ince in the comment section. May you fare well and prosper in life. People like you are desperately needed.
And to top it off, you are a fellow vegan. My world is a better place because of you! Thank you!!!!!!
English is both a Germanic and a romance language. Not only a huge chunk of its vocabulary comes from Latin, but also its own rules. If you look into it you'll find out that even Germanic languages are in fact heavily influenced by Latin.
Also Latin has been intertwined with England way before Christianity even arrived in Europe. Latin was in England even before the "Anglo" moved there, so your way of describing Latin as a sort of intruder in the English language is completely inaccurate.
thank you. helpful comment
Bravo
27:21
"How the information is going to be absorbed"
Passive.
This was great. I had a lot of fun watching this presentation. It really gave me a new perspective on language and how to be simple and concise. I often struggle with what they means when people say "omit needless words" but I think I have somewhat of a feel for it now. It's a sign of greatness if a presentation manages to teach you something new I believe.
If it is oxymoronic for straight-talker to use the expression "calling a spade a spade" to describe his speech; perhaps it is also contradictory for an elegant writer to use the words "concise and precise" to describe his writing. The simpler terms are "short and accurate" as in we should strive to write in a "short and accurate" manner.
In regard to the Rabbit Illusion prose example; I would have missed the meaning altogether because I first thought of the "Rabbit Illusion" of the Rabbit or Duck illusion graphic. The stimulus referred to in the statement would have been the visual one and not the tactile one, at least in my mind. I would have been lost trying to figure out what possible "poststimulus events" they could have been talking about.
Exactly what I thought
Same! I think that one's more famous too.
This is the best advice on writing I've ever received. Pinker, you're the man.
I've watched two videos of Mr. Pinker so far and I really enjoy them and make learning for me very enjoyable and easier. I have only taken a few notes. Those mainly consisting of words I'm not sure of, or words that are entirely different subjects unto themselves.
23:18 "the passive voice is overused by academics"
I see what you did there... :D
Well... maybe not. "Academics overuse the passive voice" would weaken the intended emphasis.
Or, perhaps it was slyly slipped in.
So meta.
He laid out the rule for when the passive voice does work best and then followed it in this example. The "passive voice" was the subject being discussed, not "academics". It makes the group of sentences more cohesive when the subject or "object of the reader/listener's mental gaze", the passive voice, leads the following sentence rather than having the previously unmentioned actor, "academics", parachuting into the lecture out of nowhere.
We've always been taught the passive voice is "bad." Maybe in English, but in many languages the passive voice is not only not incorrect but more prominent. My personally opinion, there are many situations where the passive voice is more effective. Can't think right now, but some of the greatest quotes in the English language are in passive voice. Nothing inherently wrong with the passive voice. And is it overused? When was the last time you heard someone say "You will be killed by me?" Take any random piece of writing in the English language, from NYT, etc. you will not find a single sentence in the passive voice. So exactly, why are we so upset about this? And as regard to why used in academic papers, it is to put more emphasis on the results than the persons discovering, perhaps false modesty, but that is the style for sure, compared to normal writing.
I have to catch myself using the passive voice in essays. And usually the active voice sounds better. But, as you say, there are many situations where the passive voice is better. So it's not 'bad', no.
Fiction is another 'story', it's a whole other ballgame than writing nonfiction. And a way harder one too.
STEVEN PINKER IS MY HERO. If only we could effectively communicate these ideas to everyone in the world without loss of information... I’m sure every one of them would agree. This is an incredible presentation.
Excellent talk! I miss such clarity and wit in many talks i had to sit through. Enjoyed every second. Literally ;)
I needed this lecture. Hedging has been my problem. I've thought of it as humility and prudence, but now I understand that it can be seen as an attitude that is opposite to those.
I think it can be both. Personally, I abuse hedging because I know that I don't have the necessary knowledge/understanding to speak with authority, but I think he's referring to the practice in more professional environments. It could be that the habit often arises when students are filling out word counts and covering for valid but unproductive insecurity, then mutates later. There could even be some portion of that earlier use left, long after students have proven themselves and moved on. Perhaps they focus on that old security blanket aspect, blaming it for hedging habit. It may still be technically true, then, and feel entirely true if they trace it back though life. To call it narcissistic might be intended as a bit of a wake up call, especially since his drive to fight it seems to be the counterproductive nature of hedging.
For me, it's still a problem, but it is different. When I want to talk about a scientific concept, for example, I probably should come clean to the reader, just in case. It should absolutely be clear enough, but I think it's fair that I'm afraid of the worst, just in case. BUT, that doesn't mean I should be doing it all the time, every sentence, burying anything useful in heaps of heavy, rusting metal waste. Even if it isn't that dangerous, it's still clunky and hideous.
And yes, I do know how much hedging I used in this comment. I've gotten better at finding the more natural path for it, over the years, but that's not a real solution, and it does twist sentences into hideous shapes. It's something I've been meaning to work harder at, and I'm thankful for this video reminding me. (and then proving the importance)
Postmodern writing really is a plague upon academic writing. I have eperienced it both as a reader and as a writer (when I wrote my thesis). For everyone who wonders why people write like that:
- They think they're supposed to. Everyone else seems to do it, so I better do it, too. It's subconscious imitation.
- It's fucking easy! As difficult as it is to read and understand postmodernist mumbo jumbo, it requires very little brain power to produce it. All you need is a big vocabulary. If you take a close look, you'll see that - while the vocabulary is impressive - the grammar is really primitive, and there's no sense of craftsmanship involved in the construction of sentences.
- It makes trite ideas seem as if they were important.
- It absolves you from the accusation of being sentimental or naive. Using words like "beautiful", especially when describing art, is academic suicide. Much better to say "conforms to aesthetic and stylistic conventions of its era". There. Now, nobody will suspect you of the heinous crime of actually enjoying art.
- It strengthens your feeling of belonging to that exclusive circle of erudites. You're better than the unwashed peasants who use everyday words.
Preach it brother. Postmodernism is a blight on all disciplines. I would argue that the vocabulary isn't even really large. It's really just nominalizations and suffix-infused nonsense. You'd think that twenty years after Sokal's essay exposed them that they'd clean up their act.
This was hilarious. :D
I've noticed about myself that I'm a fan of trying to give an accurate feeling, draw an accurate image of what I'm trying to say when writing. Very often something simple and straight forward like "this was hilarious" is in my opinion the most accurate way to express what I want to express. However upon considering if I should write it like that or come up with something more linguistically complex I'm faced with my stupid desire to sound erudite, elloquent, intelligent and all that jazz.
Which is why I never get upvotes. :D Shit's too long.
I think there's an important difference between writing clearly and oversimplification. "Beautiful" is not the same as "conforms to aesthetic and stylistic conventions of its era". You might say "It was considered beautiful in X period", but if you are talking about aesthetics and style in great detail, the phrase might well be appropriate.
What does that have to do with postmodernism?
everything
“Avoids clichés like the plague”
Genius
Prose for pros.
Cant we all just be in agreeance?
Prose for pedos
I just loved the way he described there's nothing gauche (fr) or sinister (it) about driving on the left. It really shows how even different languages are connected in a way.
Each time Steven Pinker said 'she' I realized a bit more how much I use 'he' instead of 'they' or 'she' and imagine my reader to be male. Time for some introspection..Thanks for the great lecture!
Ravi, don’t worry about it.
Maybe because you are a male and women do (almost) the exact same thing in reverse.
@@TK-tv5un we don't actually, "he" used to be a default for me as well. how many women do you actually talk to
@@zviyeri9117 Either they which is the most common followed by she and he in last place. Although I grant you the disparity is not as extreme. Still it's normal for one sex/gender of humans to think primarily to themselves especially when they are thinking off the cuff or most intensely and self consciously, NOT about pronouns. And I have ZERO problems with women using she or they 100 percent of time and thus women should grant the same leeway to men. We are NOT thinking about excluding you or saying this only applies to men and not women when we use them. It's just the most natural thing to use because any given person thinks about people most like themselves first. This shouldn't be a feminist issue and people who get paranoid about this should focus on real life treatment of women end of rant.
Oca 2074, I am a woman and I prefer to use “one” or “he” for the simplicity, clarity and ease of use that it provides a writer and reader. All this gender bullshit is getting in the way of communication.
I don't even like the subject per se, but hearing Steven Pinker is always a pleasure! Any lecture he gives, I'm willing to listen to.
I think Mr. Pinker underestimates the problem of unclear thinking as a source of unclear writing.
Agreed, and this problem shows up very well in software too, where muddled thinking results in ideas expressed in badly constructed, convoluted and confusing code, which may also inadvertently say the wrong thing. Clarity of thought is essential to good writing in any language.
@@sarahloffler1872 i guess that's on purpose :D
I think we overestimate how much the reader thinks
With clear writing comes better communication-- which in turn provides more opportunities for clear thinking.
Aaron Bowers My mind is saying, "Thank you." A few of the 'others' in there are whispering..."Busted!" Another is saying: "Don't think that punctuation is right." It's no mystery why I don't talk much. Too busy listening. BTW, there's another RI vid re our inner voice that you would find interesting, if you haven't watched it yet. Can't recall the title, but should be easy to find. Thanks for your post.
Why did I have to watch this only a few days before my IELTS test! I enjoyed this so much, it speaks to my soul LITERALLY. :D
This talk contains an impressive amount of ideas! :D
The one that sticked most to me was the "curst of knowledge"
I thought he was going to regurgitate the same statement over and over
In the usual clear-minded way of Dr Steven Pinker, one of the most enlightening reflections on the subject of good writing, which I have taught for years in the field of legal drafting (in French language). The defense of an appropriate use of the passive voice is particularly brilliant.
38:36 I'm a professional translator. I often experience the opposite effect if I read something I wrote but have completely forgotten. More like, "Wow, that sounds good!"
Steven is a great lecturer. Intelligent, humble and witty. Humanity would benefit from many more like him.
I am grateful today for finding such a great man. Thanks youtube.
I have heard positive things about Steven Pinker before and enjoy the royal institution talks greatly, so i decided to look into this, despite not being a native speaker - i had not imagined it would be this nuanced, informative AND entertaining. Accessible yet complex, what a great lecture!
to those who appreciated this lecture: suggest you read Mark Twain's essay, "Cooper's Literary Offenses".
Ok
Interesting synchronization, that the joke about comedians is starting at 36:47. Also when tutor is describing them, I have in my mind description for, Lost Odd Lords 0f 0bvious 0blivion.
Mind is a strange place lol ..... AR
what he calls "the curse of knowledge" is the same thing I have been railing against, without that label, since I got my first computer in 1980. I expressed my frustration in a dictum that I have been restating to every software programmer I've ever known.
"The person who writes the software should never be allowed to write the manual for its use and maintenance."
The problem I recognized back then was, the programmer KNOWS TOO MUCH and is unable to stop making assumptions late into the instructions. Then, he compounds that by eliding over intermediate steps, often justifying that with, "well, it's obvious, isn't it?" .
People giving driving directions have this failing. The late comedian Jonathan Winters nailed it with his recreation of how a local farmer back home in Southern Ohio might give directions to a stranger. "Well, ya go down the road fer a piece and then turn left where the old school house used to be."
Sparkling. Enjoyed every minute.
I think one huge cause of this is students are assigned something like a 3 page paper. So we take what we have to say and add nonsense until it is three pages lol
Quite the opposite for those trained in science! We tend to write concisely, but in such horrific, yawn-inducing language. Pinker mentions this in his book. :>
whts wrong with the sentense ：checking into the hotel ，it was nice to see。。。。
@@tsaihtsaih3275 who or what was checking into the hotel?
the best anwser:what was doing it @@xavierwaterkeyn
How about just adding wiggly lines instead? If they really care more about length than content then just do that.
Steven Pinker is one of my favourite individuals working in Academia. His humor in teaching and lectures are very funny and keep people's attention. Thus you are learning the subject he is talking about.
Dang. Three adapters to connect a Macbook to the projector lol
You aren't exactly your small time run of the mill youtube watcher, eh?
Vanirvis What makes you say that?
How dare you criticize the holy religion of macintosh.
That was bugging me too, more for the conversion to an analog VGA signal. Maybe the AV techs didn't run HDMI cable.
this is the future Pinker wants
Valeu!
De nada!
A very interesting talk. It’s on the english language as a whole, but it’s fascinating to find so many parts of grammar and good writing in general can be translated into writing fiction prose.
too*
+Claude Mackay Actually mean to be "so" ;P Thanks anyway.
Nonfiction. Pinker couldn't write fiction to save his life. Most academics can't. No imagination. And fiction requires a different kind of thinking. It relies much more heavily on uncomfortable mysteries like intuition.
That's some deep Buddhist shit right there.
He could certainly help a writer gifted with phenomenal imagination: one may have wonderful ideas but keeping in mind some basic rules makes the experience of the reader more enjoyable. "Basic" does not mean obvious, as we all encounter texts that ignore these rules. So I don't agree that "useless word should be omitted" is an example of itself: it serves a purpose, as very often this rule is ignored. So it is obvious, but not useless.
So nice to have been virtually there, what a treat !
Why am I watching a linguistics lecture at 2 f*ing AM in the morning?
Because you know how to party!
Same! It's 1:30 AM here!
Because you're a LEGEND!
I started at 3.00 AM
3:56 am haha
One of the most charismatic and sofisticated people I have seen so far. Great lecture.
Anytime I watch a Pinker lecture, my eyes spend the entire time focused on his hair; it's mesmerizing.
You may also enjoy Sir Martyn Poliakoff. th-cam.com/video/HcgpUkcYXfc/w-d-xo.html
Singular they is an excellent example of the evolution of grammar, now in 2021.
I understand that the lecturer is a frequent public speaker and legit scientist, who prepared in advance and whose material has been built word by word over the years. However, even with that in mind, I felt so captivated by the way he presented his ideas that I felt very inadequate. Not only did it look profound, coherent and incredibly eloquent, but it also drew the audience’s attention with fun familiar scenarios. I guarantee that every person, who witnessed the presentation, envied Mr. Pinker: his knowledge, skills and most importantly his life choices and values - none of which were mentioned, but all of which were yet so apparent.
Museums are teeming with fine arts of sculpture and paintings and relics, but this speech is the finest art of all.
I would like to thank you, The Royal Institution of London, as well as Mr. Pinker - I no longer want to be entertained. None of the Hollywood stars shine brighter than the armor of light you wear. This light is now my beacon. I’m on my path to forge my own.
Rarely do I enjoy lengthy scientific talks, but this one is fascinating and hilarious! Thank you. Time just flew by.
First rule of any writer: "know your audience".
This particular brilliant lecture of the great Steven Pinker and another ethereal lecture of Larry Mcenerney, which is not in this specific youtube video, but rather in a definite different one are truly helpful in my comprehensive writing.
Great talk. BTW, my understanding is that a few hundred years ago the word literally essentially meant a hidden meaning that would only emerge after study of the text, ie akin to a *literary* meaning.
Sorry, no: your understanding is in error.
@@Palimbacchius citations momentos, pavis bellum, prepare for wahr anumerta peace, approb citations needed formatters tags helluo librorum
Genuine,pure & true stream of ideas is critically essential that is a field of word-play ,kick starting the enigmatic game of words unaware of losing or winning with the piece of writing at the end of game.
to whomever may be annoyed by this fabulous speech, He uses 'he' for the writer and 'she' for the reader only to not confuse the audience. He could have used the she for the writer and he for the reader just the same. 'They' puts them both together, thus nullifying the two conversating sides. He could ave used 'blue' and 'red'. Its just so it doesnt come down to the 'he said to him' confusion. Is it the reader to the writer or the other way around?
But I thought "The reader and writer are equals". Oh wait...
ah, that makes sense. I was confused as to why he kept on using 'she' when not referring to a specific person, but it turns out that it was a specific person that he was referring to!
If that's confusing, I suggest a return to elementary school. Your explanation overcomplicates an issue that would have otherwise been self-evident, and distracts people who don't care about manufactured social engineering issues. It turned me off to this otherwise-interesting presentation, so I'm glad he got it out of the way quickly before I spent any real time on it.
In his book the chapters alternate as to whether the writer/reader is male/female. His point about the word 'they' is that this can be used as a gender-neutral singular term, and has been by many of the best writers throughout history.
aaronsdavis I vote for a zero letter word. Saves ink.
What a wonderful lecture. Thank you so much! I enjoyed this very much.
42:23 David foster Wallace “the language war “
I gained significant amount of interest in writing after watching a video on the importance of writing by Dr. Jordan Peterson and ended up here. I'm glad I watched this. Really loved the content and learned a lot.
I didn't know Thomas Gottschalk was this good with linguistics.
He isn't : it's Dieter Hallevorden in disguise ;)
I particularly recommend the segment on proper usage of the passive voice ( 25:00 )
It is an interesting time line we live in. I watch the vid. Dr. Pinker recommends a book. I cruise to Amazon while the vid continues, and buy the book for Kindle. I'm reading the book before the vid goes more than 5 minutes more.
> _It is an interesting time line we live in._
"We live in an interesting time line", surely.
The time line in which we live, is interesting.
@@prybarknives "The time line in which we live is interesting." :)
@@Ronni3no2, it is interesting, the time line in which we live?
I would say it is a consumerist time we live in and decreasing attention span. You are able to buy something on impulse before you have clearly establish whether you need it, will use it or like it. You are doing two things at once and thus not paying full attention to either.
34:56 I didn't know what the rabbit illusion was, but I understood what was being said just fine.
I love how his tie matches the cable xD
I understand why I have read two of Steven Pinker's books and never had to spend much time pondering what he meant, even if a particular issue explicated was very complicated. He learned his English in the anglo environs to be found in Montreal.
BADASS ATTITUDE OF QUOTES IN ACTION.
"It is better to be clear and possibly wrong than fuzzy and not even wrong."
- Steven Pinker.
"It is better to be fuzzy and possibly right than simplistic and definitely wrong."
- Ulysses Alvarez Laviada.
The first quote assumes that clarity doesn't have shortcomings in itself. For instance, the habits of clarity develops a tendency for us to be simplistic rather than simple when the context requires it. The habits of clarity also develops the tendency for us to dismiss fuzziness when the context might require it.
The second quote assumes that fuzziness doesn't have shortcomings in itself. For instance, the habits of fuzziness develops a tendency for us to be over complicated rather than complex when the context requires it. The habits of fuzziness also develops the tendency for us to dismiss clarity when the context might require it.
Both quotes dismiss one ontological nature of reality, namely, anything that can show human excellence, in our case, simplicity and complexity, tend to show their natural shortcomings when either of them becomes a habit.
There's a danger in assuming that simplicity is clarity: as Einstein said (sort of: ironically, the popular "quote" is actually a simplified version of what he really said): everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.
We have a serious problem in American society with the large number of people who actually believe stereotypes, false dichotomies, and other oversimplifications. They've become incapable of accurately seeing the real world, which *is* fuzzy, and full of gray areas, and they're susceptible to manipulation by people who promise them simple answers to complex problems.
While it's true that lots of people need to simplify their _writing_ to achieve clarity, clear _thinking_ more often needs complexity.
The point of writing is to communicate, not to make sure you're not wrong. Sure, be fuzzy so you won't be wrong, but no one will care cause no one knows what you're trying to say.
well put.
Did you really just refer to yourself in the third person?... And then place it beside Steven Pinker as if you're his sparring partner or something...
Anyways, you have a pretty major problem: clarity and fuzziness are completely different from complexity and simplicity, yet you interchange them as if they're parallels or something. Sometimes clarity is *very* simple and fuzziness is *very* complicated. Go read some Deepak Chopra quotes; you will see very quickly that what he has to say is very complicated, but very fuzzy to the point where he basically ends up saying nothing (the definition of word salad).
Also, "not even wrong" is a quote from Wolfgang Pauli, and it basically expresses that something is so "fuzzy" that it's both unprovable and unfalsifiable, and therefore both "not right" and "not even wrong." I think that's what Pinker was getting at, is to curb lazy thinking and bad reasoning and strive for clear, reasoned arguments and statements.
English is not my mother tongue but I love this language and this video was extremely fascinating.
Thanks
It's a very good lecture. I had to see it twice :;-)
Wow! The equivalent amount of adapters for the mac used in the presentation...
I see it twice and I still can't wrap my head completely, so much to learn
With the sight of this audiovisual piece, I was actually astonished from the sheer incredulity or belief regarding the constant misuse of nouns and adverbs that shine for their reducible complexity. Steven Pinker rides over the shoulders of the numerous giants he quotes and understands and, despite the difficulty of comprehensively addressing linguistic style due to its inherent changing nature, is able to juggle with the knives of public criticism while shining a light over this vital issue.
"...avoid cliches like the plague", no one in the audience laughed, but I did :D
Mare Graphix, then you get a medal.
I will extract approximately 5 minutes of this for a writing course. Those being the web quote, the example of syntax and a couple other features.
7:12 ff: "clever girl" ↛ good-natured velociraptor…
I kind thought it was unfair, because it is a good example to show people how language is context-dependent on a language book, but out of context on a style writing book.
Fancy having this brilliant talk interrupted by an advertisement for "Grammarly" - oh the irony!
41:00 Singular "they" is a thing, from what I understand, conveniently replacing awkward construct "he or she" since 14th century or so...
I use they when talking about more then one gender but, never use they when talking about a singular individual.
Just great - will watch again (and just have to take notes ☺ .
Captivating talk, amazing hair! :)
I do generally agree with his point. It comports nicely with the crux of what a filmmaker once told me: there are no original thoughts, no original ideas, only the way you present it. If you have thought of it, likely so has someone else. If in the unlikely event you are ever first, many will come after you, and some may do better at presentation. So it is, style in communication of writing to portray your persona is its own way of reaching out to the reader.
"there is nothing Sinister about driving on the left" nice pun there
We liked that one too.
A gem - sadly not many people seemed to have noticed (I guess people no longer have to learn Latin to pursue a degree)
I don't know very much Latin at all, but I still caught it. I like etymology though.
Alexander Jones I like your humility.
or gauche ..
Thinking back to my college days, I find that a lot of my laborious prose was a result of minimum word counts on an essay. It is the opposite of the writing seen in the film A River Runs Though It where the father reads what his son wrote and then tells him something like, “Write it again with half as many words.”
If the purpose of an essay question on an exam is to evaluate what a student has learned, let them explain to you what they learned in a way that you can understand.
is this video looped or is there a problem with youtube?
lol or am i trippin?
Yeah, looks like several parts are pasted in again. Not that I mind too much, this was very interesting to listen to, but that's still shoddy.
Glad I'm not the only one...I thought I was going crazy :P
Such an interesting lecture! I really want to read his style guide
Lawyers use the passove voice because often the action is important and not the subject. The passive voice legal exampke he used would not have worked in the active voice. It didn't matter who paid, only that the debt was paid. The law takes things literally, you woulf either have to state all possible subjects or use the passive voice instead.
Such common sense, so refreshing.
To put it simply: write as your grandma recited a story to put you to sleep as a child. Don't write like an academic. This is the best way to write a story
I love this. I remember watching "The Civil War" by Ken Burns and he included texts from a young girl's diary circa 1860ish and her prose was so moving compared to that of today.
Here are important key points from the lecture:
The rationale behind employing Passive Sentences 28:54
A thought-provoking discussion on the curse of knowledge 31:26
37:00
"Hey, Patrick.
Guess what,
Twenty foour."
Bah! You never could do a Swedish accent.
my favourite linguistics class everrr!!!
The tech-jargon equivalent of this lecture is his use of two adapters to plug the projector to the MacBook instead of just one.
That's the venue's fault for still using VGA.
I once spent 6 Months changing Form Letters written in Military Speak into Form Letters written in Plain English.
A Year later, the change back into Military Speak from Plain English only took Me an Afternoon, because I had copies of all the original Military Speak Form Letter On File and all I had to do was some Printing and Restocking.
Notice that dongle macabre on his laptop lol xD
Steven's voice can now enter the fray of voices driving your writer's block.
How is 41:10 an error? Singular they? I was scholared under Oxford rules of English grammar and the use of “they” meaning “he or she” was perfectly acceptable and encouraged when the gender is irrelevant or unknown.
Edit: having finished watching the video - he still names it a grammatical mistake which is permissible due to frequent use. Kind of contradictory. I’m sure same as I, many of the listeners of the talk will not have heard of such usage supposedly being deemed incorrect.
Is "scholar" now considered a verb under Oxford rules? I didn't know that. If the gender of a singular subject or object is, as you say, irrelevant or unknown, I see no reason beyond the whining of some feminists not to continue using the default "he" or "him" in sentences where "it" is clearly inappropriate. Instead of a crusade to renovate the English language, why don't women take up a real cause: ban chemically adjusted men from competing in women's sports.
Great Lecture. Very similar to William Zinsser's On Writing Well advices for great prose.
that use of the singular they was correct
On the avoidance of unnecessary qualifiers like "somewhat", he says that Classic Style assumes "Not everything has to be stated with absolute precision." I instantly recognized that I overuse those words [somewhat]. I am a programmer. Code and the documents describing the work to be done have to be written precisely. Ambiguity in the requirements often leads to a team of people wasting time in rewriting (and retesting). The code itself must be even more precise. I'll try not to let my conversation to sound like my work product.
"There's nothing sinister about driving on the left, nothing gauche or socialist"
I think I weed a little bit
The right side to drive is on the left.
Awesome presentation, help the reader picture the action.