Pinker starts talking at 8:40. (Talk organizers are often under the illusion that audiences came to listen to them, when in fact no one could care less about what they have to say.)
i generally agree (about organizer/intro speakers), BUT pinker is only 1 of 2 speakers for this event. you're argument is with caption writer. i'm actually hoping 'other guy' takes on lame pinker pop psychology...
+jlawrence yep, pinker states that his purpose is to dispel the intellectual dogma purporting the existence of a human soul which is independent of the biological machinery of the body. He is building a straw-man to fight before the eyes of the impressionable. I personally have encountered no such dogma among persons of academic credential. Quite contrarily, the intellectuals of which we make object reference have been entirely steeped in the polar opposite dogma; that there is no ghost but only machine. I personally would counter that there is no machine, but only individual units of consciousness which experience the sensory manifestation of a body. To evidence my position: Firstly I point to the fact that there is no matter, as such, but only subatomic particles of energy and the forces between them which, by virtue, create the illusion of matter. There simply is no machine but only an intense hologram of a machine. Secondly there is always the double-slit experiment in all its experimental variations, some of which demonstrate the "delayed eraser" effect of having a random sample of recorded data destroyed in the future but before being reviewed by a conscious observer. This proves that the effect of consciousness which Einstein called Spooky Action At A Distance is supreme when that "distance" is in time as well as if it is in space. Pinker is a thinker, and a scientist but this subject is so above his skill-set that he unknowingly begins with his hypothesis completely contrary to demonstrable scientific fact. His ultracrepidarian stance indicates that he is either a Dunning-Kruger victim or of malevolent intent. Neither is good.
ray gravitt - interesting. at the risk of sounding like a simpleton, i don't see why there can't be both matter & subatomic molecules/energy. i believe there is empirical evidence for both, and we humans just haven't reconciled the seeming contradictions. imo, pinker is light-weight & nonsense peddler on par with sam harris and his loony, counter-factual assertions about religion and 21st century geo-politics. but that's a different subject. sorta :)
34:40 If people are bombarded with publicity, creating consumerism anxiety, of course once nobody is watching they will riot and loot. Greed and savage behaviour can be attenuated by creating a society that needs reason for convincing, not persuasion.
+Jerzy Kaltenberg To convince is to persuade using arguments. To persuade is more general; you can persuade people using reasoned argumentation or by threatening to cut off their thumbs with hedge shears.
+Gabriel Hasbun yes, every society is a bubble and most people are not able to see outside of it, the problem with American capitalism is that we have "exported" our culture all over the world so things like manipulative persuasion of unexisting needs seems _normal_ because everyone does it. Well.. not everyone, if they refuse they become terrorists, if you know what I mean. Anyway... Just listen to Rammstein - Amerika "We're all living in America"
Pinker starts talking at 8:40. (Talk organizers are often under the illusion that audiences came to listen to them, when in fact no one could care less about what they have to say.),,,,,, seriously...colloquial how does the individual divide the collective and make decisions this way?
Love Pinker, makes more sense now that I know we scored similar on the political compass test :P Albeit I was about half a CM to the right of moderate.
Steven talks about personality during development... but he misses much of the developmental elements of psychological development. Which is pretty shocking. Developmental psychology is replete with how attachment and other interactions with caregivers affects the development of the individual.
Just in case anyone wonders, the idea of the 'blank slate' was brought to prominence by John Locke in his essay "An Essay concerning Human Understanding". It has roots back in Aristotle and others. Rousseau loved the idea and based his "Emile" (on education) on Locke's work. IF.....the idea is entirely true, it means we cannot blame anyone for what we call 'evil' acts... it's just that they were wrongly 'unblanked' by their early years of education and experience. Staggering if you think about it, but then..I reject the idea entirely and dwell comfortably in Romans 3:23
Hugh Pearson In fact it's even more extreme than you might imagine. I suggest reading "Free Will" by Sam Harris. Here's the short version: free will is just a powerful illusion.
Definitely one of the good guys. Like most folks who understand the value of thinking as a useful feature of the human personality he understands that the difference between red and green should not be controversial. There is no blank slate otherwise learning language would take far longer. Chomsky's LAD is real. Blank slate is BF Skinner ideology, not science.
I have to wonder about that study that indicates that the environment has no effect on our personality. What if one of the twins (growing up in the same house or not) was regularly molested and raped and the other was not? Their environment would not affect their personalities? One twin sleeps in a nice bed, eats lovely meals with the family and goes to school. The other eats scraps from a bowl on the floor, never sets foot inside a school, and sleeps in a broom closet. Their environment would not affect their personalities? One twin is sent to fight in the jungles of Vietnam and the other is assigned to filling out forms in an office in Georgia? Their environment would not affect their personalities? There is something wrong here. Obviously sometimes our environment does affect our personalities. Otherwise there would be no need for trauma counselors. You cannot do anything you want to your child and when he grows up disturbed absolve yourself from any guilt because it had nothing to do with your mistreatment. As far as the studies he mentions, I'd say we need to know more about those studies. We need some details. Just to say that there are studies that prove such and such, and nothing more, gives us NOTHING to go on.
There is some incipient evidence that major traumas can have lasting effects on personality, but that's mostly not what's under discussion here: major traumas are comparatively very rare, and most of the studies done in this area (both in 2002, and since then) are looking at the breadth of "normal" childhood environments and development. In those cases, there is still--as there was then--very little data to support the idea that parenting style and environment produces any noticeable effects on a child's personality once he reaches adulthood. A lot of the time what we perceive as personality "alterations" are short-term, but giving the person the freedom to choose his own environment (as most of us get when we become adults and leave our childhood home behind) enables the "real" personality to come to the surface. In your examples--war, office work, and so on--whatever personality changes you observe are likely to be short-term, outside of major trauma.
Emily, comparing your comment to your recurring concerns, limitations and disturbing feelings, would you describe your comment as your actual experience or a pretense?
@@ferahgo There is NO EVIDENCE that I have not smoked in eleven days. Yet I know it to be true. Go talk to the ex wives of some Vietnam vets. Go talk to some people who have been raped in prison (OR ANYWHERE). Yes, their personality changed. I don't need an article in a peer reviewed journal to tell me that it is a sunny day. I can look out the window. Something doesn't become true when "scientists" prove it. BTW, I think the term "scientist" is misapplied to psychologists. Human beings (and some other animals) are not able to be studied like the subjects of Physics.
We'll be adding this information and it will definitely be on our new site, forum-network.org, set to launch this fall! And gibberconfirm is correct, this talk was taped November 14, 2002.
I think studies comparing identical twins adopted to different homes have that innate bias - that they're unlikely to send you to an abusive home. I agree Pinker's data suggests normal parenting has little effect on IQ, personality, etc. However, extreme parenting like abuse might have an important effect.
There is no bias of having the control be a "normal parenting" home since extreme parenting is not the norm (defining extreme would be rather difficult as well). Consider experimenting with adopted twin monkeys - would you really need two controls: one normal and one extreme?
The way to test your suggestion is to have both twin children be in separate adopted, yet abusive homes (and both abuse has to be exact). Then we can determine how each reacts to the same abuse and whether it was inherited or taught. So far it doesn't seem like a productive experiment...
unassumption I believe you're mistaken about there being bias. Previous studies have demonstrated convincingly that trauma of various forms has a lasting impact. With this in mind studies were created to measure the differences between twins that did not experience trauma. This is not a bias, it's very much an intentional part of the science: trying to eliminate variables.
Everybody knows that extreme circumstances change people. Anything that pushes you too far will change you, but those also are not the norm, so its for other studies, not studies to explain the average.
+Retinend Pinker is an Atheist who believes that matter is creating his ideas, feeling his feelings, and making his decisions. Atheists believe that matter creates, feels and is decisive. What is even more irrational is the Atheist faith that matter is being spontaneously materialized from energy by chance. The only creative force is intelligence, my dear. Harvard is an elite institution in the undeniable Deliberate Dumbing Down of America.
Retinend That means Pinker is an irrational, life cheapening degenerate. Atheism rates your life parasitic in nature and enables suicide in impressionable children who often deal with depression in their teen years. Do you understand that matter does not create, feel, or solve problems?
***** You may want to narrow your scope rather than pitching this at the level of "does atheism render your life meaningless." You're simply not going to change my mind, as an atheist, in this comment box, on that. To answer your question, yes and no.
@19:14 i agreee with what steven pinker says here because i grew up for most of my life with just my mom and my sister. but i’ve recently gotten into contact with my father and our personalities are almost similar and especially in what our interests were. so you could say that genetics do play a role but that’s just my personal experience note, my father was around till i was 4 and i’d see him every now and then on holidays due to the distance that we lived from each other lol. we get along famously shall we say 😂
Young people are pretty mercurial in their dispositions, so I don't see why it would be that hard to find out why twins in similar environments/peer groups or even the same can come out to be different. Being impressionable in such a superficial and ever-changing series of scenarios early on while learning about how the world works would of course lead to differentiation, a la stem cells. If memory serves me correct the moderator said his teacher was Erik Erikson, and of course that Pinker's "coworker" of sorts is Noam Chomsky. Imagine that shit, being mixed in with those people. I have some jealousy boiling in a stew deep in the pit of my being, heh. **Bows in recognition of their impact, and wishes to join their ranks some day** Yeah, this recording was made with a sock wrapped around a cucumber with nacho cheese in-between, but Pinker is still dapper, tho. Wassap.
There may be differences induced in identical twins living in the same home that are generated by the presence of the other twin (competition encourages differentiation). It might offset any similarities induced by living together?
Twins raised separately are often uncannily similar, both showing identical eccentric mannerisms that you would never had dreamed were inherited. In fact I think they can't be inherited. Some as yet unknown mechanism is at work.
There seems to be an assumption that when children grow up in the same home that everything happens to them in the same way and at the same time and at the same age. There are a tremendous number of variables of what can happen to two people in the same home apart from each other. This seems almost completely ignored and yet IMO it's the main factor. When are we going to hear from some real experts who are actually thinking about these things.
Very interesting. Then what of games and types of games played by children and played within society. Which factors create a more independent family. Also if things normalize around genetics, then parental influence can be thought of in terms of 'responsiveness'. If parents are all reactive, then are some better at being reactive than others? (I assume neglectful parents suck at this) I know that one of the more effective strategies in clinical therapy is the proper modelling of healthy communication between client and therapist. If we can have healthy communication patterns that are flexible through therapy and these influence individuals. Then the cultural mode of identifying and accepting a personality problem with therapy as the solution is the area of interest. This would mean being able to convince people that something is wrong with them which they are responsible for dealing with, but that its not necessarily within their own control. (you cannot model healthy social communications without a partner that is outside your control). Also some dispositional aspects are trainable with focussed effort. Like conscientiousness which seems to suggest that dispositions are strategies. That just like the police can tame your violent conscience by existing, perhaps with some forcing we can become different people. That is to say, if we choose temporarily an environment where we are forced. School / military is an example of such. Both have observably net positive effects on behavior in society. If there is still all that variance and its not explained by bare environment or nature, then what about the parts of the environment that are alive, those that come directly from socialization with concrete shaping structures (the Leviathan) or culture. What about specific advantages, like with toys. Do children with more toys obtain small but significant advantages over those without toys? There is also some evidence to show that reasoning is influenced by certain types of play and imagination exercises. Even if these normalize in large populations, are there outliers? Or is it basically unimportant since children will do it whether we attempt to interrupt it or not? Also, the problem with large studies that test gross outcomes is that they often ignore the process of reaching there. For example, are people more likely to obtain the outcome of 'no difference' if something like psychotherapy was non-existent? In my personal life i have identified many personal weaknesses that brought me grief and which i subsequently went about conquering step by step. These steps are no less real and impacting even if by 30 or so, the mental health outcome for me and others are similar. Something as simple as the internet functionally transformed how i relate to and find information in helping myself. If my base nature is to deal with my weakness, the internet facilitated this. Wouldnt the identification of helpful or effective modes of facilitating adaptation to our own personal quirks . Something like a psychological economics, be part of the remaining 50% variance?
HitomiAyumu Of course not all liberals. But there are some postmodernist/cultural relativist liberals who do deny the existence of human nature, who posit that everything about the human condition is a product of culture and environment. Believe me, I'm an English major.
Pinker overtly exhibits the defensive behavior of enabling and codependency. As a strategy to cope, defend their Self, and to comply with parents' and peers' example and expectations, children learn to exclude disturbing or seemingly immovable behavior from their view. In other words, the child learns to look away from disturbing behavior and to reduce it to irrelevant- no need to look there!.... In reality of course, any behavior that disturbs you, and that you limit and distort your perception to exclude, is determining your feelings, thoughts and behavior without your conscious consideration.
That part about parents throwing their hands up in the air and exclaiming that it therefore doesn't matter how they treat the child has me thinking. How many parents treat their kids nicely because they hope to instill their own cultural and religious defenses against existential terror into the child? Doesn't this also explain the rifts that occur when the child decides to adopt different beliefs? Their idea of reciprocal altruism is: I treat you well (resulting in increased dependence on the parent) if you treat _me_ well (i.e., you support and add to my existential security blanket). To put it crudely, the parents are essentially saying that they wont get anything out of the child, so why bother parenting? To give a relatable example, this is why parents struggle to give inheritance to the apple that has fallen further away from the tree. In essence, they're forced to confront existential questions: "I worked my whole life for _this_ "? This could also explain favoritism in one child over another: If a child has personality traits and therefore beliefs aligning with theirs, they're more likely to support them.
That sounds like narcissistic parenting… I have 2 children and I don’t have strict identification to a religion or political party. My main wish for my children, is to be kind (to themselves and others), learn to live in reality and its hardships without making it tougher on themselves and others, find meaning for themselves, figure out what brings them peace and joy. Parents are vastly individual. Some parents give from a place of expectation and some don’t. It’s a vast spectrum. I don’t expect my children to take care of me, believe as I do, etc. I will have boundaries (and have used them) where I will not tolerate abusive treatment, lying, etc. That is my right. I have given more to my children, in terms of sacrifice (true sacrifice, where I will not guilt them about it), giving more, and to a depth I couldn’t imagine, to help them succeed and be safe. It is a love of a level you cannot fathom, unless you experience it. Where you want them to be ok, safe, more than your own breath itself, at times. Not all parents are like that, but some of us exist.
@@Alphacentauri819 My beliefs have changed significantly in the past 6 years. The principle of sacrifice you spoke of is one aspect that would encapsulate my views not only on parenting, but all relationships, to put it very simply.
The title of this video sums up a conversation I had with a former coworker perfectly! How arrogant are we the human race, to build a societies with rules contradicting almost every aspect of millions of years evolution, and expect people to follow them without consequences like mental health issues. We're yet to find that balance. (I wrote this before watching the video)
Oh please. What are the behaviors we should be promoting that are consistent with our history? The environment wasn't statistic- memes ebb and flow in frequency. You're chasing a moving target.
I like Pinker, mostly because he is a relatively "mainstream" scientist that goes against the mainstream, but I have a lot of criticism of his work. I know that my criticism is mostly anecdotal, but I think he puts too much on the genes and uncontrolled environment and too little on the parenting.
This has to have been presented before the Major Epigenetic find of the last decade or so... Genes are unsurprisingly more germaine than the Meta-Systems of ''Gene Expression''. Epigenetics can easily explain much in the way of ''Nature on the Development of Children, Foetussen, etc''. Much of my at-home research and in following my likes within this subject led to me writing class papers on topics containing these ideas as premises. Wherein which act they act as descriptors for the differences seen in foetussen in utero and after they have grown up as identical twins triplets, etc., and of course as a partial descriptor for differences in non-identical humans. Since non-idential people have much more obvious forms of genetic differentiation which explain differences in behaviour, physical organ structure, metabolic processes, and so on.
It makes sense in the westernized cultures, however, once taking into consideration african, Indonesian or south american tribes, behaviours would be more difficult to discern because of the huge difference in environments. Would a knife slide on the back of a Kaningara tribe member be manifested in some sort of knife mania if the individual had been raised in the western modern world?
Gabriel Hasbun I think you're making a false equivalence between various forms of trauma and irrationality and largely unhampered mental development. Is there something distinctly western about the fact that we are not born as a blank slate? Surely not. If you merely want to argue that people who grow up as part of various tribes in bad situations (economically, nutritionally, educationally, medically, etc) will have their resulting personality dominated by tribal factors, then you may be right. But this seems off-topic. It seems to me that we should be trying to help societies reach some level of basic welfare and not merely observing that life sucks for them. The fact that people who come from backward situations often grow up to become backward themselves is plain for all to see. This says nothing about the blank slate. Trauma, irrationality, and lack of development can definitely impact a persons development.
Gabriel Hasbun You made a statement before you asked a question. I was addressing your statement. My reply wasn't off topic, it was addressing the point you tried to make about the analysis being specific to western culture. I didn't (and still don't) understand your question. I don't know what a "knife slide" is. Assuming it has something to do with knives, then the answer is clearly "no". People don't have any genetic relationship with knives, so if a child of XYZ tribe that uses knives was raised from birth in the west, that child would have no special relationship to knives -- there would be no knife mania.
Gabriel Hasbun You are mistaken. He only makes the points that genetics is a bigger factor than most people realize, and that parenting is incorrectly used to explain things that actually come from genetics and peer groups, and society at large.
Human relationships from the context of atheism is quite different than from the perspective of religion. The atheistic perspective is based on materialism, on biology only.. The religious perspective comes from a perspective of consciousness, mind, and biology. Biology being deified is problematic, we have consciousness, minds, as well as the elemental (cells, water, heat, oxygen, electricity, electromagnetism and magnetism). All physical except for magnetism which is a mystery. Focusing on the elemental alone as being fundamental is very diminishing to the full range of what it means to be human. Focusing on genes is denying consciousness, mind, and the unique soul enhanced individuality of each human person. The elemental, material only perspective is reductive and limiting to the full range of the human perspective and what it means to be human. We have ‘hard problem of consciousness’ today. It is through the individualized sparks of consciousness that we are who we are, and it is that which our genes express. Mr. Pinker reversed his ‘blank slate’ perspective, if he had understood consciousness as fundamental he would not have made the mistake in the first place. From a religious perspective consciousness is always fundamental.
Pinker would admit that culture influences a persons propensity to be disgusted at certain things, so how can he then say that parenting plays almost no role in shaping behavior. Certain aspects of parenting will certainly shape a child's behavior, however this may not be evident if the studies are done within a culture where parenting styles and values are largely simular and are a result of culture. The identical twins study has too many variables to draw conclusion. The twins talk to each other, one looks right one looks left, and that's clearly enough to say that their experiences are different. When one twin assumes a behavioral position the other might assume a complementary position instinctivley as a result of a desire to be socially useful or conforming.
I wonder why he doesn't talk about the actual real human interaction with warmth and love that is exchanged between the parent and child , mother or father. He acts as if every individual mother and father is the same as every other individual mother and father and they are not... some mothers or fathers are cold and calculating and some mothers or fathers are warm and loving and nurturing and understanding, it matters little, the genetics, the DNA ... it just doesn't matter ...what matters is touch and warmth and kindness and inclusion ...love...
I think you are talking about something that he isnt. Those things dont really change personality too much. But 1:12:00 discusses this issue perfectly. You may have just missed it.
His definition of Anarchy is off. You can ONLY have rational law, rational police, rational order f there isn't a contradictory moral rule that says person "A" cannot use force (the citizen) and person "B" MUST use force to extract funds (the State).
no one says the state must use force to extract fund... the state may put you in prison if you refuse to pay taxes... taxes are necessary to live in a society with law, order and security.
Consciousness, perception and thinking. A theory of mind according to platonic physics. You will not find an explanation as understandable as this in the current Stanford Leibniz site, which is incomplete as it makes no mention of Mind. 1. Plato's Mind (the One, the Self) is the cause agent, the singular cybernetic control point, of all perception, thinking and doing in the universe, where control is top down from Mind. 2. Plato's Mind is timeless and spaceless, and being the only Reality, time and space are not ultimately real, but are artificial constructions. 3. Since Mind is mental, not physical, all control and causation is mental, not physical, and top down, since Mind is the singular (cybernetic) control point at the top. 4. Thus Mind plays the brain like a violin, not the reverse. 5. Man's mind (small m) is a passive mental subset, or monad, of Mind and under its control. 6. This monad (our mind) is the mental correspondent of the brain and controls it. Our mind plays our brain like a violin. 7. Thinking is the intentional action of Mind (and thus mind) on mental entities such as ideas, manipulating and transforming them intentionally (through will). 8. Qualia are simply sensory experiences, the conversion by Mind of sensory nerve signals into mental sensory experiences in a fashion similar to the conversion of physical sensory nerve signals into mental images. 9.. As Dennett has explained, In materialist thinking, there is no end to homunculi viewing the universe through a chain of homunculi. Leibniz terminates this infinite regress by making the last viewer the Self , which is at a higher level and suitably equipped. 10. Perception occurs as Mind converts physical sensory signals in the brain into mental experiences in one's mind. 11. These experiences can be made conscious (are made aware) by reperceiving or thinking them. This is called apperception by Leibniz. Thus consciousness is apperception. 12. The universe, according to Leibniz, is viewed directly by the One (the Self, the ONLY true perceiver), which views these scenes discretely and in sequence (analogous to snapshots) at discrete points as a whole indirectly through the totality of individual monads, and from their own perspectives. 13. This totality of sets of individual perceptions is then distributed in the proper order and perspective to each of the monads in the universe. 14. These individual sets are called "perceptions", and must be distributied in this indirect fashion by Mind because each monad, in order to remain an individual, has no "windows", to use Leibniz's term. 15. The perceptions are made up of what the monad would see of its nearby neighbors if it were allowed to do so. This is purely mental, but allows us to speak in terms of spacial distances and directions, through these snapshots, between physical bodies, which Mind, being spaceless, cannot actually directly. 16. Mind is also timeless, so that time is physically "created" as an artifact through the actual motions of physical bodies in physical spacetime. 1 17. Intelligence is the nonphysical ability to freely make autonomous choices. It is a faculty of nonphysical Mind, the Nothing out of which the physical universe exploded in the Big Bang. 18. Another name for this nonphysical intelligence is "life." Leibniz maintained that the entire universe is alive. 19. Each monad is perpetual, created at the beginning of the universe and only annihilated by Mind. 20. Since monads can contain other monads, they can. as plants do through seeds, and humans do through sexual reproducxtion, produce subsequent generations. 21. A robot or computer has no Mind or Self which has the wide bandwidth, intelligence and intentionality to actually perceive , think, or do things, such as Mind does. So, being without Mind, computers can have no actual intelligence or life. 22. The current theory of mind is materialist. In contrast to the above, it uses the usual decapitated, mindless, or where mind is at best an abstract entity, not a living presence as in the above. The materialist model of perception, thinking and doing, being Mindless, is dead. DSG Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
Applied concepts of the Holographic Principle, ie pure-math trancendental relative-timing condensation modulation cause-effect, e-Pi-i logarithmic numberness-resonance dominance Laws of Mathematical Quantum-fields, will resolve the understanding of innate periodicity and duality In-form-ation substantiation, but a case by case analysis of every situation belongs in the Field of Semantics (labels and meanings, like standards and measures). Some basic information on QM-TIME Completeness cause-effect Actuality is required, but it is precisely this approach that is usually denied in evidence prepared for judgement. Eg this e-Pi-i sync-duration mechanism defines log-antilog interference positioning-location and identification of elemental knowledge states that have innate temporal superposition symmetry, the kind thought of as balanced equations. A line-of-sight superposition POV is automatically semantically biased because looking->seeing does not necessarily correspond to listening->hearing.., which is the job of Philosophy to analyse and communicate. Theorists can get stuck on looking without seeing what they have been hearing and thereby ignore seeing the evidence presented to a Hearing for Judgement. This is the Quantum Operator Logic of the Measurement Problem, one way Arrow of Time pulse-evolution without acknowledgement of the innate duality of QM-TIME superposition identification Completeness.
Consciousness and Thinking, in Leibniz, restated in terms of CS Peirce's logical categories According to Leibniz, perception occurs when sensory nerve signals in the brain are converted by universal Mind into personal experiences. This would seem to correspond to what CS Peirce would call Firstness. Then these experiences are made conscious in an individual's mind when they are reflected on --thought-- by an individual's mind. Thought then appears to be Mind's apperception of an already perceived perception, bringing into consciousness that experience. Thought then is what Leibniz called apperception. Peirce would call this the category of Secondness. Accordingly, Consciousness is Firstness. Thinking is Secondness. These are logical categories that mathematicians and logicians might wish to pursue. I don't believe that Peirce's categories (consciousness as Firstness, and thinking as Secondness) can be understood in material -- brain--terms. -- Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
I find it very interesting that there are differences between identical twins, but they are not caused by environment. Perhaps the third missing aspect is individual choice?
Kytsche I don't think you were watching. Dr Pinker clearly said that they are not caused by environment as they occur both when the twins grow up together, or apart. Don't answer sweepingly when you have no idea what you're talking about
Kytsche ...he didn't say what makes the other factors up, he just said 'something else'. Due to this nature of unstable systems in thermodynamics we pretty much know the universe is not deterministic
Unfortunately, the standardized test that the teacher was referring to, is simply to assess the school, the teacher, the curriculum. It in no way rates the child itself. The rate of improvement in test scores from year to year, is how the school is judged to receive monies toward new computer labs, sports equipment and facilities, and of course faculty in¢rea$es. I’m surprised the teacher wasn’t aware of that.
This guy really doesn't seem to go deep...pretty much all I'm hearing is statistics and surface variables. I don't see how you could pinpoint anything about specific behaviour with what he's saying. To me, it doesn't explain anything.
The author is not disputed on the research, but strongly disputed upon his erroneous conclusions about the data, which likely stems from that embarrassing moment of being chastised by his parents for what he perceives as his foolish belief that left to their own devices, people are generally peaceful and will do the right thing. The police are needed because we have an unjust, severely inequitable economic society. When resources are shared for the common good, there is no need for guards and police. Police weren't created to protect us one from another at any rate, but to protect the wealthy elite from the unwashed masses. Secondly, when people are hungry and struggling due to inequality, it would be illogical to allow an opportunity to have some relief to pass by. So these preconditions explain the thieving in your city that day. Even though Canada is much better on striving for more equality, they have fallen far short in that people are still suffering and tired of it. #NaturalLawResourceBasedEconomy #ThirdIndustrialRevolution
He says parents don't really matter other than providing SES and subculture. So I guess child sexual abuse, child physical abuse or both don't really matter right? This guy makes a lot of very careless claims in this video. Many of the arguments he makes takes many things for granted which he neglects to mention. Have never been very fond of this guy. He's a hardcore Jewish supremacist too for anyone that cares to do the research.
Little Leigh I guess child sexual abuse, child physical abuse or both don't really matter right? I don't think it matters whether you have kids or not. I think Pinker's comments are simply wrong.
Jim Beam They are extreme cases, Pinker is talking about the general population. Not only that but he believes that nature and nurture have an afect, just that nurtureI as important as we have been falsely led to belive. I think you need to calm down, stop knee-jerk reacting and actually read some studies. Opinion doesn't count t when the is decades of statistical data.
Little Leigh General population? Your comment just shows your immense ignorance on this subject. Abuse is far far more common than most people realize especially in lower income and minority households. Then there is the issue of transience which is very common in modern culture even among the middle class. Most psychologists now believe that moving children during or post puberty can have a serious impact on their emotional health. Many believe that simply moving a child of that age constitutes emotional neglect at the very least. The affect of abuse and neglect on children is well documented and if you actually read some studies on that issue you would realize it. If you exclude SES, subculture and the affect of abuse on children from Pinker's study you're excluding close to 25% of the minority population and somewhere between 15-20% of the white population. That's well over 60 million Americans who I"m sure would be surprised to hear that they are not part of the general population. I'm sure Pinker is aware of this but neglects to mention it because it doesnt' fit his thesis. Not dealing with nuances like this is very dangerous when ignoramuses like yourself just buy in hook line and sinker.
Pinker starts talking at 8:40. (Talk organizers are often under the illusion that audiences came to listen to them, when in fact no one could care less about what they have to say.)
i generally agree (about organizer/intro speakers), BUT pinker is only 1 of 2 speakers for this event. you're argument is with caption writer. i'm actually hoping 'other guy' takes on lame pinker pop psychology...
Thanks for contributing this information!
+jlawrence lame? You must be.
+jlawrence yep, pinker states that his purpose is to dispel the intellectual dogma purporting the existence of a human soul which is independent of the biological machinery of the body. He is building a straw-man to fight before the eyes of the impressionable. I personally have encountered no such dogma among persons of academic credential. Quite contrarily, the intellectuals of which we make object reference have been entirely steeped in the polar opposite dogma; that there is no ghost but only machine. I personally would counter that there is no machine, but only individual units of consciousness which experience the sensory manifestation of a body. To evidence my position: Firstly I point to the fact that there is no matter, as such, but only subatomic particles of energy and the forces between them which, by virtue, create the illusion of matter. There simply is no machine but only an intense hologram of a machine. Secondly there is always the double-slit experiment in all its experimental variations, some of which demonstrate the "delayed eraser" effect of having a random sample of recorded data destroyed in the future but before being reviewed by a conscious observer. This proves that the effect of consciousness which Einstein called Spooky Action At A Distance is supreme when that "distance" is in time as well as if it is in space. Pinker is a thinker, and a scientist but this subject is so above his skill-set that he unknowingly begins with his hypothesis completely contrary to demonstrable scientific fact. His ultracrepidarian stance indicates that he is either a Dunning-Kruger victim or of malevolent intent. Neither is good.
ray gravitt - interesting. at the risk of sounding like a simpleton, i don't see why there can't be both matter & subatomic molecules/energy. i believe there is empirical evidence for both, and we humans just haven't reconciled the seeming contradictions.
imo, pinker is light-weight & nonsense peddler on par with sam harris and his loony, counter-factual assertions about religion and 21st century geo-politics. but that's a different subject. sorta :)
Pinker's memory for poetry goes to prove his point that not all brains are the same. I wish I could recite as faithfully!
+Breda Jake I think the fields of psychiatry and special education would disagree, Breda. Thoughts?
+chrismca it upsets me this discussion went no further.. I really was interested in hearing this theory 😕
His recital of 'This be the verse' by Philip Larkin was actually incorrect.
iPad lessons
Steven Pinker is my absolute by far most favorite Scientiific Mind
Not only does he present his ideas clearly and interestingly in his books but he is also a charismatic and articulate speaker. Thanks for the video!
The commercialization, popularization and commodification of the arts is a symptom of the decline.
Wow two of my favorite minds alive today. Gardner and Pinker!
34:40
If people are bombarded with publicity, creating consumerism anxiety, of course once nobody is watching they will riot and loot.
Greed and savage behaviour can be attenuated by creating a society that needs reason for convincing, not persuasion.
Gabriel Hasbun please explain how convincing is different from persuasion
I meant manipulative persuasion of unexisting needs.
+Jerzy Kaltenberg To convince is to persuade using arguments. To persuade is more general; you can persuade people using reasoned argumentation or by threatening to cut off their thumbs with hedge shears.
+Gabriel Hasbun yes, every society is a bubble and most people are not able to see outside of it, the problem with American capitalism is that we have "exported" our culture all over the world so things like manipulative persuasion of unexisting needs seems _normal_ because everyone does it. Well.. not everyone, if they refuse they become terrorists, if you know what I mean. Anyway... Just listen to Rammstein - Amerika "We're all living in America"
Oh yes people have to be taught to desire, lol.
Buddhism had it all backwards
always a joy to listen to this brilliant man!
Pinker starts talking at 8:40. (Talk organizers are often under the illusion that audiences came to listen to them, when in fact no one could care less about what they have to say.),,,,,,
seriously...colloquial how does the individual divide the collective and make decisions this way?
Love Pinker, makes more sense now that I know we scored similar on the political compass test :P Albeit I was about half a CM to the right of moderate.
Steven talks about personality during development... but he misses much of the developmental elements of psychological development. Which is pretty shocking. Developmental psychology is replete with how attachment and other interactions with caregivers affects the development of the individual.
Just in case anyone wonders, the idea of the 'blank slate' was brought to prominence by John Locke in his essay "An Essay concerning Human Understanding". It has roots back in Aristotle and others. Rousseau loved the idea and based his "Emile" (on education) on Locke's work. IF.....the idea is entirely true, it means we cannot blame anyone for what we call 'evil' acts... it's just that they were wrongly 'unblanked' by their early years of education and experience. Staggering if you think about it, but then..I reject the idea entirely and dwell comfortably in Romans 3:23
Where does Aristotle say that humans do not have innate qualities/dispositions (i.e. are born as 'blank slates')?
Hugh Pearson In fact it's even more extreme than you might imagine. I suggest reading "Free Will" by Sam Harris. Here's the short version: free will is just a powerful illusion.
Definitely one of the good guys. Like most folks who understand the value of thinking as a useful feature of the human personality he understands that the difference between red and green should not be controversial. There is no blank slate otherwise learning language would take far longer. Chomsky's LAD is real. Blank slate is BF Skinner ideology, not science.
I have to wonder about that study that indicates that the environment has no effect on our personality. What if one of the twins (growing up in the same house or not) was regularly molested and raped and the other was not? Their environment would not affect their personalities? One twin sleeps in a nice bed, eats lovely meals with the family and goes to school. The other eats scraps from a bowl on the floor, never sets foot inside a school, and sleeps in a broom closet. Their environment would not affect their personalities? One twin is sent to fight in the jungles of Vietnam and the other is assigned to filling out forms in an office in Georgia? Their environment would not affect their personalities? There is something wrong here. Obviously sometimes our environment does affect our personalities. Otherwise there would be no need for trauma counselors. You cannot do anything you want to your child and when he grows up disturbed absolve yourself from any guilt because it had nothing to do with your mistreatment. As far as the studies he mentions, I'd say we need to know more about those studies. We need some details. Just to say that there are studies that prove such and such, and nothing more, gives us NOTHING to go on.
There is some incipient evidence that major traumas can have lasting effects on personality, but that's mostly not what's under discussion here: major traumas are comparatively very rare, and most of the studies done in this area (both in 2002, and since then) are looking at the breadth of "normal" childhood environments and development. In those cases, there is still--as there was then--very little data to support the idea that parenting style and environment produces any noticeable effects on a child's personality once he reaches adulthood. A lot of the time what we perceive as personality "alterations" are short-term, but giving the person the freedom to choose his own environment (as most of us get when we become adults and leave our childhood home behind) enables the "real" personality to come to the surface. In your examples--war, office work, and so on--whatever personality changes you observe are likely to be short-term, outside of major trauma.
+Emily nice
Emily, comparing your comment to your recurring concerns, limitations and disturbing feelings, would you describe your comment as your actual experience or a pretense?
@@ferahgo "There is some incipient evidence that major traumas can have lasting effects on personality" Ha Ha!!!
@@ferahgo There is NO EVIDENCE that I have not smoked in eleven days. Yet I know it to be true. Go talk to the ex wives of some Vietnam vets. Go talk to some people who have been raped in prison (OR ANYWHERE). Yes, their personality changed. I don't need an article in a peer reviewed journal to tell me that it is a sunny day. I can look out the window. Something doesn't become true when "scientists" prove it. BTW, I think the term "scientist" is misapplied to psychologists. Human beings (and some other animals) are not able to be studied like the subjects of Physics.
When was this recording made? The quality is too low and the styles too old for it to have been made in 2014.
My Pinker hair analysis says 2002, when "Blank Slate" was released.
gibberconfirm Good to know. Maybe Forum Network could update the Description to add that info.
We'll be adding this information and it will definitely be on our new site, forum-network.org, set to launch this fall! And gibberconfirm is correct, this talk was taped November 14, 2002.
+gibberconfirm lmfaoo "Pinker Hair analysis"
😂😂
genius
This is literally genius. Yes. That is what we would consider! I bet Pinker would love it.
I think studies comparing identical twins adopted to different homes have that innate bias - that they're unlikely to send you to an abusive home. I agree Pinker's data suggests normal parenting has little effect on IQ, personality, etc. However, extreme parenting like abuse might have an important effect.
Extreme parenting. That's when you take your kids snowboarding right?
There is no bias of having the control be a "normal parenting" home since extreme parenting is not the norm (defining extreme would be rather difficult as well). Consider experimenting with adopted twin monkeys - would you really need two controls: one normal and one extreme?
The way to test your suggestion is to have both twin children be in separate adopted, yet abusive homes (and both abuse has to be exact). Then we can determine how each reacts to the same abuse and whether it was inherited or taught. So far it doesn't seem like a productive experiment...
unassumption I believe you're mistaken about there being bias. Previous studies have demonstrated convincingly that trauma of various forms has a lasting impact. With this in mind studies were created to measure the differences between twins that did not experience trauma. This is not a bias, it's very much an intentional part of the science: trying to eliminate variables.
Everybody knows that extreme circumstances change people. Anything that pushes you too far will change you, but those also are not the norm, so its for other studies, not studies to explain the average.
If you want the answer to anything, ask Steven Pinker! This man GETS it!
Excellent interviewer! Very interesting. I feel like reading the book again.
Thanks for watching!
+Retinend Pinker is an Atheist who believes that matter is creating his ideas, feeling his feelings, and making his decisions. Atheists believe that matter creates, feels and is decisive. What is even more irrational is the Atheist faith that matter is being spontaneously materialized from energy by chance.
The only creative force is intelligence, my dear. Harvard is an elite institution in the undeniable Deliberate Dumbing Down of America.
***** Who cares? Does that mean you must disagree with him on everything?
Retinend That means Pinker is an irrational, life cheapening degenerate. Atheism rates your life parasitic in nature and enables suicide in impressionable children who often deal with depression in their teen years. Do you understand that matter does not create, feel, or solve problems?
***** You may want to narrow your scope rather than pitching this at the level of "does atheism render your life meaningless." You're simply not going to change my mind, as an atheist, in this comment box, on that. To answer your question, yes and no.
The blank slate hypothesis is very popular amongst educators. What care they that it has been refuted by experiment?
And Gardner is a leading proponent.
@19:14 i agreee with what steven pinker says here because i grew up for most of my life with just my mom and my sister. but i’ve recently gotten into contact with my father and our personalities are almost similar and especially in what our interests were. so you could say that genetics do play a role but that’s just my personal experience
note, my father was around till i was 4 and i’d see him every now and then on holidays due to the distance that we lived from each other lol. we get along famously shall we say 😂
I love exploring nature, keep it going!
Young people are pretty mercurial in their dispositions, so I don't see why it would be that hard to find out why twins in similar environments/peer groups or even the same can come out to be different. Being impressionable in such a superficial and ever-changing series of scenarios early on while learning about how the world works would of course lead to differentiation, a la stem cells.
If memory serves me correct the moderator said his teacher was Erik Erikson, and of course that Pinker's "coworker" of sorts is Noam Chomsky. Imagine that shit, being mixed in with those people. I have some jealousy boiling in a stew deep in the pit of my being, heh. **Bows in recognition of their impact, and wishes to join their ranks some day**
Yeah, this recording was made with a sock wrapped around a cucumber with nacho cheese in-between, but Pinker is still dapper, tho. Wassap.
At like 31:00 he is talking about a hypothetical case.
There may be differences induced in identical twins living in the same home that are generated by the presence of the other twin (competition encourages differentiation). It might offset any similarities induced by living together?
Twins raised separately are often uncannily similar, both showing identical eccentric mannerisms that you would never had dreamed were inherited. In fact I think they can't be inherited. Some as yet unknown mechanism is at work.
There seems to be an assumption that when children grow up in the same home that everything happens to them in the same way and at the same time and at the same age. There are a tremendous number of variables of what can happen to two people in the same home apart from each other. This seems almost completely ignored and yet IMO it's the main factor. When are we going to hear from some real experts who are actually thinking about these things.
This argument has been debunked numerous times. Stop denying human nature
Luke, would it be accurate to say that your priority in the area of human nature is hiding and pretending?
Yeah, some of the “hosts” are full of themselves,and go on and on, and on!
skip to 19:30
Very interesting.
Then what of games and types of games played by children and played within society.
Which factors create a more independent family.
Also if things normalize around genetics, then parental influence can be thought of in terms of 'responsiveness'. If parents are all reactive, then are some better at being reactive than others? (I assume neglectful parents suck at this)
I know that one of the more effective strategies in clinical therapy is the proper modelling of healthy communication between client and therapist. If we can have healthy communication patterns that are flexible through therapy and these influence individuals. Then the cultural mode of identifying and accepting a personality problem with therapy as the solution is the area of interest. This would mean being able to convince people that something is wrong with them which they are responsible for dealing with, but that its not necessarily within their own control. (you cannot model healthy social communications without a partner that is outside your control).
Also some dispositional aspects are trainable with focussed effort. Like conscientiousness which seems to suggest that dispositions are strategies. That just like the police can tame your violent conscience by existing, perhaps with some forcing we can become different people.
That is to say, if we choose temporarily an environment where we are forced. School / military is an example of such. Both have observably net positive effects on behavior in society.
If there is still all that variance and its not explained by bare environment or nature, then what about the parts of the environment that are alive, those that come directly from socialization with concrete shaping structures (the Leviathan) or culture.
What about specific advantages, like with toys. Do children with more toys obtain small but significant advantages over those without toys? There is also some evidence to show that reasoning is influenced by certain types of play and imagination exercises. Even if these normalize in large populations, are there outliers? Or is it basically unimportant since children will do it whether we attempt to interrupt it or not?
Also, the problem with large studies that test gross outcomes is that they often ignore the process of reaching there. For example, are people more likely to obtain the outcome of 'no difference' if something like psychotherapy was non-existent?
In my personal life i have identified many personal weaknesses that brought me grief and which i subsequently went about conquering step by step. These steps are no less real and impacting even if by 30 or so, the mental health outcome for me and others are similar.
Something as simple as the internet functionally transformed how i relate to and find information in helping myself. If my base nature is to deal with my weakness, the internet facilitated this.
Wouldnt the identification of helpful or effective modes of facilitating adaptation to our own personal quirks . Something like a psychological economics, be part of the remaining 50% variance?
Dr. Pinker is a towering intellect.
Pinker: Canada's answer to Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennet.
It's fun to watch supposed "liberals" experience the cognitive dissonance by having their assumptions and dogmas challenged.
I"m with you.
What? Liberals do not deny the existence of human nature?
HitomiAyumu Of course not all liberals. But there are some postmodernist/cultural relativist liberals who do deny the existence of human nature, who posit that everything about the human condition is a product of culture and environment. Believe me, I'm an English major.
Bowen Zhao This is the first time I've heard of it. Republicans are also bad in the denial of human nature with regard to homosexuality.
There are dummies across the political spectrum. Republican don't have a monopoly on ignorance.
Pinker overtly exhibits the defensive behavior of enabling and codependency.
As a strategy to cope, defend their Self, and to comply with parents' and peers' example and expectations, children learn to exclude disturbing or seemingly immovable behavior from their view. In other words, the child learns to look away from disturbing behavior and to reduce it to irrelevant- no need to look there!.... In reality of course, any behavior that disturbs you, and that you limit and distort your perception to exclude, is determining your feelings, thoughts and behavior without your conscious consideration.
It would be interesting to see if identical twins, raised separately , and one grows up a Sociopath, and the other doesn’t grow up a sociopath !!!
Sociopathy has a stronger genetic than environmental component...
Sybil Francis PhD clinical psychologist , researcher, professor
That part about parents throwing their hands up in the air and exclaiming that it therefore doesn't matter how they treat the child has me thinking. How many parents treat their kids nicely because they hope to instill their own cultural and religious defenses against existential terror into the child? Doesn't this also explain the rifts that occur when the child decides to adopt different beliefs? Their idea of reciprocal altruism is: I treat you well (resulting in increased dependence on the parent) if you treat _me_ well (i.e., you support and add to my existential security blanket). To put it crudely, the parents are essentially saying that they wont get anything out of the child, so why bother parenting? To give a relatable example, this is why parents struggle to give inheritance to the apple that has fallen further away from the tree. In essence, they're forced to confront existential questions: "I worked my whole life for _this_ "? This could also explain favoritism in one child over another: If a child has personality traits and therefore beliefs aligning with theirs, they're more likely to support them.
That sounds like narcissistic parenting…
I have 2 children and I don’t have strict identification to a religion or political party.
My main wish for my children, is to be kind (to themselves and others), learn to live in reality and its hardships without making it tougher on themselves and others, find meaning for themselves, figure out what brings them peace and joy.
Parents are vastly individual. Some parents give from a place of expectation and some don’t. It’s a vast spectrum.
I don’t expect my children to take care of me, believe as I do, etc.
I will have boundaries (and have used them) where I will not tolerate abusive treatment, lying, etc. That is my right.
I have given more to my children, in terms of sacrifice (true sacrifice, where I will not guilt them about it), giving more, and to a depth I couldn’t imagine, to help them succeed and be safe.
It is a love of a level you cannot fathom, unless you experience it. Where you want them to be ok, safe, more than your own breath itself, at times.
Not all parents are like that, but some of us exist.
@@Alphacentauri819 My beliefs have changed significantly in the past 6 years. The principle of sacrifice you spoke of is one aspect that would encapsulate my views not only on parenting, but all relationships, to put it very simply.
How many times does Mr. Pinkers show up on J. Epstein videos. I have lost count.
Did they record this inside a tin can?
The title of this video sums up a conversation I had with a former coworker perfectly!
How arrogant are we the human race, to build a societies with rules contradicting almost every aspect of millions of years evolution, and expect people to follow them without consequences like mental health issues. We're yet to find that balance.
(I wrote this before watching the video)
Nicely summed up , balance isn't needed in a dynamic system .•°
Oh please. What are the behaviors we should be promoting that are consistent with our history? The environment wasn't statistic- memes ebb and flow in frequency. You're chasing a moving target.
I like Pinker, mostly because he is a relatively "mainstream" scientist that goes against the mainstream, but I have a lot of criticism of his work. I know that my criticism is mostly anecdotal, but I think he puts too much on the genes and uncontrolled environment and too little on the parenting.
This has to have been presented before the Major Epigenetic find of the last decade or so...
Genes are unsurprisingly more germaine than the Meta-Systems of ''Gene Expression''. Epigenetics can easily explain much in the way of ''Nature on the Development of Children, Foetussen, etc''. Much of my at-home research and in following my likes within this subject led to me writing class papers on topics containing these ideas as premises. Wherein which act they act as descriptors for the differences seen in foetussen in utero and after they have grown up as identical twins triplets, etc., and of course as a partial descriptor for differences in non-identical humans. Since non-idential people have much more obvious forms of genetic differentiation which explain differences in behaviour, physical organ structure, metabolic processes, and so on.
It makes sense in the westernized cultures, however, once taking into consideration african, Indonesian or south american tribes, behaviours would be more difficult to discern because of the huge difference in environments. Would a knife slide on the back of a Kaningara tribe member be manifested in some sort of knife mania if the individual had been raised in the western modern world?
Gabriel Hasbun I think you're making a false equivalence between various forms of trauma and irrationality and largely unhampered mental development. Is there something distinctly western about the fact that we are not born as a blank slate? Surely not. If you merely want to argue that people who grow up as part of various tribes in bad situations (economically, nutritionally, educationally, medically, etc) will have their resulting personality dominated by tribal factors, then you may be right. But this seems off-topic. It seems to me that we should be trying to help societies reach some level of basic welfare and not merely observing that life sucks for them. The fact that people who come from backward situations often grow up to become backward themselves is plain for all to see. This says nothing about the blank slate. Trauma, irrationality, and lack of development can definitely impact a persons development.
You went on and off topic stampede and didn't answer my question.
Gabriel Hasbun You made a statement before you asked a question. I was addressing your statement. My reply wasn't off topic, it was addressing the point you tried to make about the analysis being specific to western culture. I didn't (and still don't) understand your question. I don't know what a "knife slide" is. Assuming it has something to do with knives, then the answer is clearly "no". People don't have any genetic relationship with knives, so if a child of XYZ tribe that uses knives was raised from birth in the west, that child would have no special relationship to knives -- there would be no knife mania.
Well, from what I recollect of Pinker's discussion, there would be a knife mania.
Gabriel Hasbun You are mistaken. He only makes the points that genetics is a bigger factor than most people realize, and that parenting is incorrectly used to explain things that actually come from genetics and peer groups, and society at large.
Human relationships from the context of atheism is quite different than from the perspective of religion. The atheistic perspective is based on materialism, on biology only.. The religious perspective comes from a perspective of consciousness, mind, and biology. Biology being deified is problematic, we have consciousness, minds, as well as the elemental (cells, water, heat, oxygen, electricity, electromagnetism and magnetism). All physical except for magnetism which is a mystery.
Focusing on the elemental alone as being fundamental is very diminishing to the full range of what it means to be human. Focusing on genes is denying consciousness, mind, and the unique soul enhanced individuality of each human person. The elemental, material only perspective is reductive and limiting to the full range of the human perspective and what it means to be human.
We have ‘hard problem of consciousness’ today. It is through the individualized sparks of consciousness that we are who we are, and it is that which our genes express. Mr. Pinker reversed his ‘blank slate’ perspective, if he had understood consciousness as fundamental he would not have made the mistake in the first place. From a religious perspective consciousness is always fundamental.
Pinker would admit that culture influences a persons propensity to be disgusted at certain things, so how can he then say that parenting plays almost no role in shaping behavior. Certain aspects of parenting will certainly shape a child's behavior, however this may not be evident if the studies are done within a culture where parenting styles and values are largely simular and are a result of culture.
The identical twins study has too many variables to draw conclusion. The twins talk to each other, one looks right one looks left, and that's clearly enough to say that their experiences are different. When one twin assumes a behavioral position the other might assume a complementary position instinctivley as a result of a desire to be socially useful or conforming.
Bill Ilkovski I have the same reservations
I wonder why he doesn't talk about the actual real human interaction with warmth and love that is exchanged between the parent and child , mother or father. He acts as if every individual mother and father is the same as every other individual mother and father and they are not... some mothers or fathers are cold and calculating and some mothers or fathers are warm and loving and nurturing and understanding, it matters little, the genetics, the DNA ... it just doesn't matter ...what matters is touch and warmth and kindness and inclusion ...love...
I think you are talking about something that he isnt.
Those things dont really change personality too much. But 1:12:00 discusses this issue perfectly. You may have just missed it.
His definition of Anarchy is off. You can ONLY have rational law, rational police, rational order f there isn't a contradictory moral rule that says person "A" cannot use force (the citizen) and person "B" MUST use force to extract funds (the State).
no one says the state must use force to extract fund... the state may put you in prison if you refuse to pay taxes... taxes are necessary to live in a society with law, order and security.
"No one says the state must use force"..."the state may put you in prison". Do you see the problem here?
Consciousness, perception and thinking. A theory of mind according to platonic physics.
You will not find an explanation as understandable as this in the current Stanford Leibniz site,
which is incomplete as it makes no mention of Mind.
1. Plato's Mind (the One, the Self) is the cause agent, the singular cybernetic control point, of all perception, thinking and doing in the universe, where control is top down from Mind.
2. Plato's Mind is timeless and spaceless, and being the only Reality, time and space
are not ultimately real, but are artificial constructions.
3. Since Mind is mental, not physical, all control and causation is mental, not physical,
and top down, since Mind is the singular (cybernetic) control point at the top.
4. Thus Mind plays the brain like a violin, not the reverse.
5. Man's mind (small m) is a passive mental subset, or monad, of Mind and under its control.
6. This monad (our mind) is the mental correspondent of the brain and controls it. Our mind
plays our brain like a violin.
7. Thinking is the intentional action of Mind (and thus mind) on mental entities such as ideas,
manipulating and transforming them intentionally (through will).
8. Qualia are simply sensory experiences, the conversion by Mind of sensory nerve signals into
mental sensory experiences in a fashion similar to the conversion of physical sensory nerve signals
into mental images.
9.. As Dennett has explained, In materialist thinking, there is no end to homunculi viewing the universe through a chain of homunculi. Leibniz terminates this infinite regress by making the last viewer the Self , which is at a higher level and suitably equipped.
10. Perception occurs as Mind converts physical sensory signals in the brain into mental experiences in one's mind.
11. These experiences can be made conscious (are made aware) by reperceiving or thinking them.
This is called apperception by Leibniz. Thus consciousness is apperception.
12. The universe, according to Leibniz, is viewed directly by the One (the Self, the ONLY true perceiver), which views these scenes discretely and in sequence (analogous to snapshots) at discrete points as a whole indirectly through the totality of individual monads, and from their own perspectives.
13. This totality of sets of individual perceptions is then distributed in the proper order and perspective to each of the monads in the universe.
14. These individual sets are called "perceptions", and must be distributied in this indirect fashion
by Mind because each monad, in order to remain an individual, has no "windows", to use Leibniz's term.
15. The perceptions are made up of what the monad would see of its nearby neighbors
if it were allowed to do so. This is purely mental, but allows us to speak in terms of
spacial distances and directions, through these snapshots, between physical bodies,
which Mind, being spaceless, cannot actually directly.
16. Mind is also timeless, so that time is physically "created" as an artifact through
the actual motions of physical bodies in physical spacetime.
1
17. Intelligence is the nonphysical ability to freely make autonomous choices. It is a faculty of
nonphysical Mind, the Nothing out of which the physical universe exploded in the Big Bang.
18. Another name for this nonphysical intelligence is "life." Leibniz maintained that the entire
universe is alive.
19. Each monad is perpetual, created at the beginning of the universe and only annihilated by Mind.
20. Since monads can contain other monads, they can. as plants do through seeds, and humans do through sexual reproducxtion, produce subsequent generations.
21. A robot or computer has no Mind or Self which has the wide bandwidth, intelligence
and intentionality to actually perceive , think, or do things, such as Mind does. So, being without Mind, computers can have no actual intelligence or life.
22. The current theory of mind is materialist. In contrast to the above, it uses the usual decapitated,
mindless, or where mind is at best an abstract entity, not a living presence as in the above.
The materialist model of perception, thinking and doing, being Mindless, is dead.
DSG
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
stunning
Applied concepts of the Holographic Principle, ie pure-math trancendental relative-timing condensation modulation cause-effect, e-Pi-i logarithmic numberness-resonance dominance Laws of Mathematical Quantum-fields, will resolve the understanding of innate periodicity and duality In-form-ation substantiation, but a case by case analysis of every situation belongs in the Field of Semantics (labels and meanings, like standards and measures).
Some basic information on QM-TIME Completeness cause-effect Actuality is required, but it is precisely this approach that is usually denied in evidence prepared for judgement.
Eg this e-Pi-i sync-duration mechanism defines log-antilog interference positioning-location and identification of elemental knowledge states that have innate temporal superposition symmetry, the kind thought of as balanced equations. A line-of-sight superposition POV is automatically semantically biased because looking->seeing does not necessarily correspond to listening->hearing.., which is the job of Philosophy to analyse and communicate.
Theorists can get stuck on looking without seeing what they have been hearing and thereby ignore seeing the evidence presented to a Hearing for Judgement. This is the Quantum Operator Logic of the Measurement Problem, one way Arrow of Time pulse-evolution without acknowledgement of the innate duality of QM-TIME superposition identification Completeness.
Consciousness and Thinking, in Leibniz, restated in terms of CS Peirce's logical categories
According to Leibniz, perception occurs when sensory
nerve signals in the brain are converted by universal Mind into personal experiences.
This would seem to correspond to what CS Peirce would call Firstness.
Then these experiences are made conscious in an individual's mind when they
are reflected on --thought-- by an individual's mind. Thought then
appears to be Mind's apperception of an already perceived perception,
bringing into consciousness that experience. Thought then is
what Leibniz called apperception. Peirce would call this the
category of Secondness.
Accordingly, Consciousness is Firstness. Thinking is Secondness.
These are logical categories that mathematicians and logicians might wish to pursue.
I don't believe that Peirce's categories (consciousness as Firstness,
and thinking as Secondness) can be understood in material -- brain--terms.
--
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
I find it very interesting that there are differences between identical twins, but they are not caused by environment. Perhaps the third missing aspect is individual choice?
Kytsche I don't think you were watching. Dr Pinker clearly said that they are not caused by environment as they occur both when the twins grow up together, or apart.
Don't answer sweepingly when you have no idea what you're talking about
Kytsche You're wasting my time, Dr Pinker said there were aspects other than environment involved
Kytsche ...he didn't say what makes the other factors up, he just said 'something else'.
Due to this nature of unstable systems in thermodynamics we pretty much know the universe is not deterministic
Individual choice is affected genetics and environment though
"Has just finished writing"? I read his book, for the first time, at least 10 years ago, and then reread it two years ago.
53:10 we are not stardust we are not golden and we are not going back to the garden, get used to it.... He is wrong about that
I don't agree with a lot of what Stephen says but I love to listen to and ponder his ideas.
I wonder why Pinker doesn't talk about things like the touch and the holding of a mother...
Unfortunately, the standardized test that the teacher was referring to, is simply to assess the school, the teacher, the curriculum.
It in no way rates the child itself.
The rate of improvement in test scores from year to year, is how the school is judged to receive monies toward new computer labs, sports equipment and facilities, and of course faculty in¢rea$es.
I’m surprised the teacher wasn’t aware of that.
Pinkest
Leave it to a psychologist to double down on false ideas of human nature...
Politically he is similar to me knew it.
what is this lady even talking about
Toaster recording strikes again
The arts are not a footnote to Pinkers nonscience.
This guy really doesn't seem to go deep...pretty much all I'm hearing is statistics and surface variables. I don't see how you could pinpoint anything about specific behaviour with what he's saying. To me, it doesn't explain anything.
The author is not disputed on the research, but strongly disputed upon his erroneous conclusions about the data, which likely stems from that embarrassing moment of being chastised by his parents for what he perceives as his foolish belief that left to their own devices, people are generally peaceful and will do the right thing.
The police are needed because we have an unjust, severely inequitable economic society. When resources are shared for the common good, there is no need for guards and police. Police weren't created to protect us one from another at any rate, but to protect the wealthy elite from the unwashed masses. Secondly, when people are hungry and struggling due to inequality, it would be illogical to allow an opportunity to have some relief to pass by. So these preconditions explain the thieving in your city that day. Even though Canada is much better on striving for more equality, they have fallen far short in that people are still suffering and tired of it.
#NaturalLawResourceBasedEconomy #ThirdIndustrialRevolution
min 19
Elitism at its height.
He says parents don't really matter other than providing SES and subculture. So I guess child sexual abuse, child physical abuse or both don't really matter right? This guy makes a lot of very careless claims in this video. Many of the arguments he makes takes many things for granted which he neglects to mention. Have never been very fond of this guy. He's a hardcore Jewish supremacist too for anyone that cares to do the research.
I agree. He doesn't have any kids, so his views on this subjects come from his personal agenda.
Paul Bloom has come to the same conclusion and he has kids.
Little Leigh I guess child sexual abuse, child physical abuse or both don't really matter right? I don't think it matters whether you have kids or not. I think Pinker's comments are simply wrong.
Jim Beam
They are extreme cases, Pinker is talking about the general population. Not only that but he believes that nature and nurture have an afect, just that nurtureI as important as we have been falsely led to belive. I think you need to calm down, stop knee-jerk reacting and actually read some studies. Opinion doesn't count t when the is decades of statistical data.
Little Leigh General population? Your comment just shows your immense ignorance on this subject. Abuse is far far more common than most people realize especially in lower income and minority households. Then there is the issue of transience which is very common in modern culture even among the middle class. Most psychologists now believe that moving children during or post puberty can have a serious impact on their emotional health. Many believe that simply moving a child of that age constitutes emotional neglect at the very least. The affect of abuse and neglect on children is well documented and if you actually read some studies on that issue you would realize it.
If you exclude SES, subculture and the affect of abuse on children from Pinker's study you're excluding close to 25% of the minority population and somewhere between 15-20% of the white population. That's well over 60 million Americans who I"m sure would be surprised to hear that they are not part of the general population. I'm sure Pinker is aware of this but neglects to mention it because it doesnt' fit his thesis. Not dealing with nuances like this is very dangerous when ignoramuses like yourself just buy in hook line and sinker.
This is way more boring than any bible ever made