Steven Pinker on Noam Chomsky & Sam Harris

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ต.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 1.2K

  • @arthurtfm
    @arthurtfm 4 ปีที่แล้ว +296

    This is how an interviewer should ask questions to an expert: short, to the point. No life stories or long-winded forewords. The audience is interested in the expert and the expert has probably much more to say than the interviewer. Congratulations!

    • @User0resU-1
      @User0resU-1 4 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      Also really impressed with the intelligence of the questions. And pinning pinker down with specifics in the question.

    • @Puketapu
      @Puketapu 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      Pinker is great but all of the questions are leading

    • @aisforawesome4387
      @aisforawesome4387 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Grgrory

    • @Wuppie62
      @Wuppie62 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Lancelot Arc
      What's so terribly wrong with using the label 'expert' upon an interesting or professional person in general, for describing the different positions of interviewer and interviewee?
      He wasn't talking specificly about Pincker, but if your virtual laughter was meant derogatory towards Pincker being called an 'expert', just say so and explain yourself.

    • @veranochick
      @veranochick 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Expert in what?
      What is Pinker's expertise?
      Life?

  • @Magicalpow1
    @Magicalpow1 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I've come to notice that it's not just one video that you have the whole video broken up into parts, each of them being labeled, and I have to say it's so appreciated. Many content creators do it sometimes but that consistency is really something. Loving your channel and everything it offers so far.

  • @TenderBug
    @TenderBug 3 ปีที่แล้ว +21

    This is absolutely a hidden gem can't believe I missed this interview. Thanks guys for making this happen.

  • @garethstanden3732
    @garethstanden3732 4 ปีที่แล้ว +32

    Great to listen to to Steven as usual. I did fall for the click bait naming of Harris, Chomsky & Peterson though. I think he covers all 3 in under two minutes.

    • @humanflourishing8519
      @humanflourishing8519 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I agree with this. I also clicked on the vid here because I was curious to hear Steven Pinker's thoughts these days on his quondam professor, Avram Noam Chomsky.

    • @skibbityb1
      @skibbityb1 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      G Standen funny how he doesn’t bring up his trips on his buddy Epstein’s “Lolita Express” jet, or how he was friends with him long AFTER his 2008 conviction of underage rape.

    • @noiseofknowing8964
      @noiseofknowing8964 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      B J He was never “friends” with Epstein.

    • @richardmetzger2574
      @richardmetzger2574 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@noiseofknowing8964 Just a client.

    • @noiseofknowing8964
      @noiseofknowing8964 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Richard Metzger At most Pinker accepted a ride on Epstein’s jet with several other academics. Epstein was not on the jet at the time. Other than that Pinker never took a dime from him. I don’t agree with everything Pinker says either, but I only criticize those ideas, these other accusations are pretty thin.

  • @carlosstafford8306
    @carlosstafford8306 4 ปีที่แล้ว +17

    Excellent interview, manner, content and tone. Haven’t listened to Pinker much but enjoyed thoroughly his measured stance and viewpoints

  • @scottnagel4
    @scottnagel4 4 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    PInker is a class act. He is not only brilliant and a great writer, he refrains from personal attacks on his critics, even when they deserve it. He is an all around nice guy.

  • @iorr98
    @iorr98 4 ปีที่แล้ว +17

    I guess you can call it "radical left" relative to how far right we have move in the last 40 years.
    Universal healthcare is only radical for the insurance company and big pharma,
    More strident environmental laws is only radical for polluters.
    What is radical is privatisation of the basic needs for a society to function.

    • @grrakkh4459
      @grrakkh4459 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      abolishing borders (which means abolishing nation states) and openly calling for a solcialist revolution by dismantling the "racist, patriachal and oppressive "economic system and social norms is pretty radical. how much more radical can they even be?

    • @charlesbourgoigne2130
      @charlesbourgoigne2130 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Grrakkh nobody serious wants to abolish borders. What the educated left criticizes is that immigrants are often used as scapegoats for every crime that happens in the US. Also, a wall is not only costly, does it really help? And: there are real refugees from Latin America that suffer from dictatorial regimes. Shouldn’t you at least try to help them? The alternative is returning them which is against human rights if they are threatened.
      You are talking about a radical minority. Reforms like access to health care, acces to education also for those who aren’t millionaires, protection of workers’ and consumers’ rights, advocating for regulated markets that prevent monopolization and corporatism (companies bypassing the people by writing or dictating the laws to politicians who they pay) - these all are not a “radical socialist revolution”.
      We should stop branding everythimg with fancy terms that have a meaning to broad to be precise.
      For example, “socialist” can mean Sovjet socialist (very bad), it can also mean Social-Democrat (the guys that advocate for easy access to education, health care etc).
      The same with “Capitalism”. Everybody sane is for private property. But it can also mean Corporatism.
      We should talk about the concrete issues.
      The rest are just terms. Right and left are also just words. We should focus on the issues and discuss pros and cons.

    • @za5820
      @za5820 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@charlesbourgoigne2130 "nobody wants to abolish borders" this is just disingenuous.
      Beyond that, all the stuff you outlined as not radical, arent radical obviously. Theyve been normal left wing causes for a long time. Something very different and truly worrisome is happening culturally right now and every ex-communist expat is telling us to be careful and concerned. Maybe "socialist revolution" isnt the most proper academic definition but im pretty sure you understand what hes trying to say and handwaving it isnt going to help you cross that aisle.

    • @davidleaman6801
      @davidleaman6801 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      th-cam.com/video/GqgOvzUeiAA/w-d-xo.html Check out Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather. Canada's "Greatest Canadian" Tommy Douglas. There are tons of TH-cam videos about him. He was Canada's "Bernie" eighty years ago.

    • @mrkimble2618
      @mrkimble2618 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      What the left have never understood is that, before you start redistributing wealth, you first have to create it. Hospital beds and welfare are bought by the taxes of the rich, not by governments. Governments don't have any money.

  • @brettrobbins
    @brettrobbins 4 ปีที่แล้ว +70

    44:41 what you're looking for

    • @user-nc9pc3gr4c
      @user-nc9pc3gr4c 4 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      Jordan is against enlightenment principles and progress because he is sympathetic to religion? That is one of the dumbest thing I've ever heard Steve say. Religion is not in the way of scientific progress, in fact, it was at the core of the enlightenment revolution.

    • @ohrej
      @ohrej 4 ปีที่แล้ว +23

      @@user-nc9pc3gr4c Just becase you dont understand/agree with it doesnt mean its dumb. Not sure where you live but on my planet religion was almost always in the way of scientific progress. At the time of enlightmement religion was at the core of everything...

    • @erksp7961
      @erksp7961 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@ohrej Hmm. Maybe a little ignorant. The enlightenment partially grew out of christianity and its values. I don't think Jordan is diametrically opposed, but he is critical of the somewhat 'religious' rationality and think we should temper it with mythological wisdom. Or something like that.

    • @Live0nnn
      @Live0nnn 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@user-nc9pc3gr4c Historically, many religious despots didn't allow for science or education to take place, because of the threat of forward thinking, progress, new ideas and, of course, the inevitable wake up and shake down of such despots.

    • @user-nc9pc3gr4c
      @user-nc9pc3gr4c 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@Live0nnn I would agree, unless of course it served their interest. But at the time of the enlightenment, I don't think anyone was getting burnt at the stake. We had a few atheist, but most were Christian and achieved great progress. I just think it is unnecessary to bring that into the discussion one way or the other. Jordan sticks to science like glue.

  • @juiceqc7716
    @juiceqc7716 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    Thank you for this high quality Q & A.

  • @energyben
    @energyben 4 ปีที่แล้ว +17

    I've felt like this for some time now, since reading Pinker's life chanigng book, better Angels of Our Nature - I can't think of another human being who I admire and hold in higher esteem than Pinker. While it's never healthy to have your worldview impacted so much by any single person, Pinker's fact and statistic based arguments have completely flipped my worldview on its head. I used to be very pessimistic about the world, and now I keep our current world problems in the context of how far we've come, on some many levels

    • @seanmatthewking
      @seanmatthewking 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I think things have definitely been improving since civilization started. But I do think a lot of people are missing some major elements of life that existed before civilization. A major element of “work” was hunting, which you did with friends and family. Life was far more brutal, dangerous, and physically less comfortable, but living was also more meaningful and vivid, I would think. It’s definitely a trade off, and maybe we’re much better off, all things considered.
      It’s also possible the future will veer from the current trajectory. China is a rising, non-democratic power. We can hope a burgeoning middle class will transform it into a democracy, but new technology changes the dynamics. Technology might ultimately strengthen government power, allow for authoritarianism to take hold everywhere. What better tool is there to counteract rebellious sentiments in a population than AI.
      Technology changes dynamics, so we can assume all the forces that have propelled us toward our better angels will continue

    • @bcshu2
      @bcshu2 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Sean Matthew King I do not think an argument can be made live had more meaning during hunting gathering days versus today. When children and those giving birth died regularly, when life consisted many of worry, doubt and no security, when life was mainly focussed on mere survival ... there clearly was less time to be given to meaningful pursuits. Combines with the sheer level of ignorance a lot of meaning was misguided. Today, the availability of free time is astronomical in comparison. Of course how individuals chose to utilize that is up to them, but there is no doubt the amount devoted to meaningful personalized pursuits is unheralded. That’s free time, as for hours spent working, there again is not doubt right now there is simply no comparison devoted to meaningful pursuits. Be it creators or innovators. Millions are focussed on eradicating illness for example yet others compose projects which ignite or stir the soul of billions. There is no comparison.
      It sounds like your painting an idyllic romanticized notion of life back then while ignoring realities strengths today.
      As for the concern over technology. Why is it that every generation concludes that today things are different? That somehow what we are on the cusp of is not akin to what our ancestors in the past faced? To be sure, things aren’t the same but the forces are in many ways. I see no reason to fret about the potential benefits and overall trajectory of humanity as a whole given our increasing technology, in fact I see it as potentially propelling the net positives we have witnessed so far.

    • @energyben
      @energyben 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@seanmatthewking hey sean, while i agree with you that living standards, health, wellbeing, education, human rights, have all gotten so much better since hunter gatherer times, I think you might be romanticising just how tough, short and unforgiving hunter gatherer tribal life was. If by meaningful you mean that hunting and foraging and being v close to the natural world is more fulfilling than say the average office worker's safe, sterile environment, I think you are grossly underestimating how mortally dangerous and constantly stressful a life foraging out in the wild would be. Firstly, you wouldn't be doing it with 'friends and family'. You'd be doing it in a hierarchical, physically enforced group of often violent men. Agression breeds aggression, and this would be no walk in the park picking daisies. There are examples of stone age men found in their cave habitats with their heads stoved in, from behind, suggesting that intra-tribal disagreements and politics were lethal. Just as you see with our closest primate relatives, chimpanzees. I might have thought along the same lines as you Sean before I read Pinker's book, Better Angels, but he lays the evidence out clearly - tribal hunter/gatherer life was actually MORE violent and you had a much higher chance of a violent death than compared to agricultural settlements, then ancient civilisations, and so on. The trend actually goes to a DECREASE in violent deaths per 100,000 capita of the population, as humans progress from hunter gatherer life to modern civilisation. Not the other way. This is partly because tribal warfare was rife in hunter gatherer life, as evidenced by a whole body of anthropological studies on tribes from around the world. Also Sean I think you're romanticising how utterly nasty a winter in a cave woulid be. And then throw in some hungry bears, some tribal neighbours who want to kill you and rape your women, and you've just noticed that the cut on your leg that you got some time ago is really starting to stink and antibiotics don't exist yet. Really, there was absolutely nothing better or more meaningful about hunter gatherer life, Sean :) What amazes me is that humans used to be so tough and heroic that we actually managed to get through those unbelievably harsh times and come out the other side to where we are now. It's an incredible story really, especially for a species that is so prone to bias, prejudice, superstition etc. Anyway, READ PINKER'S BOOK, Better Angels, it's simply fantastic, you will not regret it!

    • @seanmatthewking
      @seanmatthewking 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      1. Why do you think they had less free time? Everything I read suggests they worked less.
      2. And what they did for work was done with friends and family. You’re right that it’s possible to find work today that’s as meaningful as one can imagine, but I like to tap about numbers--what percent of people find their work meaningful? Yes, it’s possible to live a life that’s the best of both worlds, where you’re safe, happy, comfortable, living with meaning, etc. But this is beside the point.
      3. “It sounds like your painting an idyllic romanticized notion of life back then while ignoring realities strengths today.“ I don’t know what you’re basing this on. I said “Life was far more brutal, dangerous, and physically less comfortable“-how does that acknowledgment fit with your description? I’ll add despair to the list of negative traits. The death around you triggers despair.
      4. But this leads me back to my main point: one can live with danger, pain and suffering, and despair while still leading a meaningful life. In fact, I think these things generate meaning. Especially when you have tradition developed over thousands of years that helps you translate these feelings into meaning.
      Assuming you accept evolution, you understand that our yearning for meaning developed with hunter-gatherer society. If that’s where it’s yearning developed, I would imagine that’s where it’s fulfillment can be found. I don’t want to speculate too much deeper, because I’m sure there are anthropological studies on these topics.
      As for the future:
      I haven’t concluded anything about where the future is going. Where it’s going depends on the specific forces. Why has technology so far aided us in improving society, and why do we foresee those forces as continuing? Many trends have began and faded. This one has had a large arc, but it’s longevity doesn’t itself tell us anything about the future.
      Since we developed nuclear weapons, there has always been uncertainty about our future. Look how long it takes us to address a problem like climate change. Surely that should give your optimism some pause. Assuming climate change isn’t as the worst projections (not a warranted assumption, but for the sake of my argument), doesn’t this tell us something about the ability of global civilization to avoid large scale disasters?
      A specific concern I already mentioned was the threat of AI combined with authoritarianism. AI can be used to more effectively control populations. Corporations are already keeping massive data files on people and learning how to convince you more effectively to buy shit, and the technology is still very primitive.
      One AI surpasses human intelligence in all the key ways, it can improve itself quicker than humans can, which results in exponential growth in improvement. Depending on who develops it and how far behind others are, the group that controls it (if even possible) will have the power to take over the world soon enough. It’s bad news when one group has uncontested power.
      Things like this have happened before on different scales. Guns, for example, were a game changer. But AI could be much different.
      What I’m talking about are technological changes that redistribute how power is redistributed. I don’t know at all how things will play out, but you can’t assume all technological changes will result in positive changes without articulating a mechanism for why that would be.
      And let’s be clear, I’m not asserting that things will play out in a negative way. I can make guesses based on why I know, but I acknowledge my ignorance is too vast to think my guesses hold much water.

    • @seanmatthewking
      @seanmatthewking 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      “If by meaningful you mean that hunting and foraging and being v close to the natural world is more fulfilling than say the average office worker's safe, sterile environment, I think you are grossly underestimating how mortally dangerous and constantly stressful a life foraging out in the wild would be.”
      I think meaning is distinct from danger.
      I concede I don’t know enough about the dynamics within a tribe to say how fulfilling it would be.
      “You'd be doing it in a hierarchical, physically enforced group of often violent men.” Since my entire argument was about meaning, the intro-tribal dynamics is the most significant part to dwell on. The rest isn’t news to me.
      I’ve listened to most of the book on audio, btw. Just not recently. Anyway, short response I know. Don’t have time right now.

  • @NegatingSilence
    @NegatingSilence 4 ปีที่แล้ว +17

    "I have an eclectic mix" - It's just all the totally reasonable opinions that most of the population has. But because of how things are now, it's somehow weird to think those things.

  • @robstorms
    @robstorms 4 ปีที่แล้ว +74

    If you had the guest record his audio on his end ( directly, not through the chat) , then sent you the file, and you substituted it for his chat audio, he would not sound like he was at the bottom of the ocean and be so fatiguing to listen to.

    • @TheoriesofEverything
      @TheoriesofEverything  4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Working on it. - Curt

    • @DerekMoore82
      @DerekMoore82 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      But they would have to convince the guest to do that extra work, and I would imagine some guests would balk at jumping through any production hoops due to their busy schedules without some incentive. They're probably just grateful to have the guest agree to the interview and wouldn't want to scare them off with homework assignments. Perhaps if the interviewer sent a guy to assist the guest in the event they can't be bothered.

    • @johnhauber6458
      @johnhauber6458 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      It would have taken quite a bit of work to sync, in this case, as there are frequent dropouts throughout the interview. Those would cause a delay and mismatch between the audio and the video.

    • @BenRobinson1974
      @BenRobinson1974 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@johnhauber6458 its basic editing...

    • @libertyprime9307
      @libertyprime9307 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@johnhauber6458 If you know how to edit video/audio at all, this is one of the simplest things to do. You just align video and audio once and it'll be good for the entire conversation.

  • @StolenHandel
    @StolenHandel 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Loved the bonus questions at 47:00. Pinker is awesome and it's revealing when people attempt to discredit/'cancel' him. As Glenn Loury said, most of these critics couldn't carry his book bag.

    • @scotthullinger4684
      @scotthullinger4684 ปีที่แล้ว

      There were NO bonus questions at 47.00.
      That was when he signed off -

  • @EmperorsNewWardrobe
    @EmperorsNewWardrobe 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    That first question was great and the answer was much needed for me

  • @danieldonaldson8634
    @danieldonaldson8634 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    so Pinker would like to say that libertarianism is the consequence of a campus left that rejects markets out of hand. This is unsupportable. No credible left oriented campus groups are demanding 5 Year Plans, annihilation of markets, or anything else. At the margins this may exist, but to make it emblematic of the left is dishonest. And Libertarianism did not arrive on campus as a reactive product; it’s an ideological construction that has been in play since the 40’s at least, Ayn Rand passim. But this is a quasi-mainstream view, economic extreme radicalism and naïveté that holds comfortable sway not just in the Republican Party, but more important among their funders and controllers, such as the Koch Foundation, Coors Foundation, etc etc. I agree with Pinker that the deciding factor around libertarianism is its detachment from historical and economic reality, and it shouldn’t demand any of our attention. The fact that it does is much more the function of the distortion of astroturfing, and there is not more reason to debate the ideas of libertarianism than there is to debate core tenets of evolutionary theory. It’s reasonable to do so, but only if some novel approach or idea is the reason, Simply to babysitting the people who insist on the primacy of discredited, unsupported fantasies, is the same as bringing Lamarck back into the debate on fundamental organic biochemistry. The fact that they are accorded this space, and that Pinker cannot merely dismiss them, and panders to them, and tries to blame the left for them is indicative of the weakness of his position in this area.

  • @fredwelf8650
    @fredwelf8650 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I watched this because there was a recent article in the NYT, July 16, 2020, about Steven Pinker who had come under fire from the left for stating that "Problem is not race, but too many police shootings," in relation to his tweet, "Data: Police don't shoot blacks disproportionality." I concur, this is what the data says.
    In this interview, the query was put concerning Enlightenment values and progress. The problem as I see it is that Enlightenment values with regard to ethics and history are "rationalistic," and not merely because of Hegel's famous, 'the real rational, the rational is real.' Historians from Ranke and Vico, Meinecke and Troeltsch, Goethe to Weber, and the huge literature around this problem of values and historical events, have all struggled unsuccessfully to wed history to an ethical explanation. At best, relativist positions hold sway against the palpable irrationality, which ironically tends to include science and technology! It cannot be justified that slavery, the US Civil War and its aftermath, European colonialism and mutual hatreds leading to WWI, and the German-Jewish debacle are 'rational!' Thus, a lacuna presents itself in the claim that the Enlightenment is foundational!

  • @AANasseh
    @AANasseh 4 ปีที่แล้ว +19

    I agree pretty much on every political and ideological line Dr. Pinker holds. I’ve had the privilege of attending his courses. He’s incredibly insightful.

    • @Powd3r81
      @Powd3r81 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I wonder if you would feel the same way had you received the same education under a different professor, not that you're biased or anything XD

    • @Wuppie62
      @Wuppie62 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@Powd3r81
      I agree with most of what Pincker says, but never had him as a professor. He 's one of the many (foreign) scientists that publish and appear in media that I found interesting and educational. I bought and read his book The Blank Slate long ago, and made me rethink and change my earlier ideas/views somewhat.

  • @ehsh3072
    @ehsh3072 4 ปีที่แล้ว +46

    love steven pinker. intelligent, kind, and good.

    • @peterv1436
      @peterv1436 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      is that why he was on the Epstein plane?

    • @robertosheldon9061
      @robertosheldon9061 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Yes. It is always enlightening when listening to him. Pinker is one of the sane voices out there. He defended James Damore as well, when the media tried to paint him as a sexist caveman.

    • @turquoiseafro1520
      @turquoiseafro1520 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Virginia Roberts accuses him of rape on Epstein's island in her book. He denies it saying he is too much of a feminist to do so. She describes him in her book as Steven [Redacted], a professor from Harvard with mad scientist white hair.

    • @GOffUnit
      @GOffUnit 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@turquoiseafro1520 She was talking about a different Steven.

    • @xoranginho
      @xoranginho 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      also takes money from jeffrey epstein lol

  • @thebaldman72
    @thebaldman72 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    2 separate thoughts. 1. How Dr Pinker describes his put personal political beliefs sounds like he's a fan of Canadian policies. 2. The authors are smart to populate the title with Dr Peterson and Noam Chomsky's names to increase the number of hits. For those wondering, the jbp question is near the end.

    • @starlah8299
      @starlah8299 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thank you

    • @minhongz
      @minhongz 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thanks, found this 27mins in, now I can skip to the end.

    • @darylloth3237
      @darylloth3237 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      1. Canada has got a lot right. Not all, but a lot. If it were not so damned cold half the year the population would be a lot larger.
      2. Who cares? Anyone with any intellectual curiosity will appreciate the excellent quality of the questions and Dr. Pinkerton's thoughtful and well considered answers.
      I was a fan of Dr. Pinkerton and even more so after this interview.
      Kudos to the interviewers on the high quality and well researched questions. I see a bright future for you both.

  • @tartanhandbag
    @tartanhandbag 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Pinker's position is of course well established, him having written the whole of BAOON on the topic, but the more recent (and similarly large!) book "Behave" by neuroendocrinologist and primatologist Robert Sapolsky, of similar stature to Pinker, challenges this (to me oversimplified) view that it's the case that the nomadic tribes of the past were more violent than current day. From Behave, a more subtle argument comes forth that agrarianism, and particularly postoralism engenders violence, whereas hunter gatherers much less so. i say this as someone who used to propound the same argument as Pinker, but who had enough arguments with people of differing opinions that i went digging and the literature is pretty convoluted with no obvious consensus. i was certainly sold most by Sapolsky's view, which was in line with the best of the papers i read on the topic until then. i'm not an expert by any means though, just a biologist who likes to read.

    • @guitarmusic524
      @guitarmusic524 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Sapolsky is an amazing scholar. Few people understand the human brain like he does. I have yet to read Behave, but I need to. I have watched all of his 2011 Lectures on Human Behavioral Biology (great activity during last Spring's COVID) shutdown.

  • @user-ju7ze9to4k
    @user-ju7ze9to4k 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Don’t agree with him politically, but what a nice fellow, and, as always, what nice hair!

  • @chel3SEY
    @chel3SEY 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    You will struggle to find a more civil, measured, thoughtful and reasonable public intellectual in the world today than Professor Pinker.

  • @chrisbrando100
    @chrisbrando100 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    It's easy to see why Chomsky doesn't take this man particularly seriously.

    • @quitschiek5038
      @quitschiek5038 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Whom does he take seriously? One of his main revelations was defeated by Daniel Everett when he studied the Pirahas. Never trust arrogance.

    • @hooligan9794
      @hooligan9794 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I stopped taking Chomsky seriously years ago.

  • @ibperth
    @ibperth 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Great interview, thank you. At 32:00 onwards the discussion asks whether human rights are independent of humanity. Pinker answers correctly that they are, but here is a different reason. Laws of Physics arise from symmetry principles, and so do Laws of humanity. "Do unto others as to oneself" is just a statement of symmetry. So it is symmetries that generate various Laws. The only difference between the Laws of Physics versus those of humanity is that in the former there is no choice, but in the latter it is a cultural choice.

  • @hrmIwonder
    @hrmIwonder 4 ปีที่แล้ว +25

    "Unless you're a totalitarian language despot"... I believe the established term is grammar nazi.

    • @bristolfashion4421
      @bristolfashion4421 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Dude... pa-leese - the term *Nazi* is a proper noun and should therefore be capitalised... ;-)

    • @hermangritz4234
      @hermangritz4234 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@charlesbourgoigne2130 except normativity in language is a contingent social phenomena, whereas math is universal

    • @solomonherskowitz
      @solomonherskowitz 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      th-cam.com/video/hslPNjqcXMk/w-d-xo.html

    • @johannesbakker4330
      @johannesbakker4330 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      : It would be nice if "math" (*in general) were "universal" today. But it is not. There are many different mathematicians and each subbranch of mathematics tends to have significant debates. Of course historically it is even more true that "math" in general was not universal except in the most basic sense of arithmetic. We now use a modified version of Leibnitz's notation system for calculus, not Newton's notation system, and that means they were not 100 % the same.

  • @robstorms
    @robstorms 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    I hope I don't sound like I am complaining because I am grateful to hear him interviewed and you folks did a great job of letting him talk ( unlike some others). One possibility for great guest audio would be to send them ( snail mail ) a little audio recorder ( Zoom, Tascam, Yamaha) with a post paid return envelope, have them set it down somewhere near their mouth, and then leave it in their mailbox for pickup. Total postage should be just a few dollars.They would not even need to shut it off. Then substitute the good audio when you receive it. You are correct that the sync is not locked ( wild sync they used to call it ) but todays time bases are so good you may not even need one retrim near the middle of the program. Thanks for getting this great guest!

  • @MarrsAttax
    @MarrsAttax 4 ปีที่แล้ว +19

    The guy with the beard sounds like Text-To-Speech

  • @Run.Ran.Run1
    @Run.Ran.Run1 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    It's unbelievable that people still think the Paris agreement is anything close to achievable or even necessary. Who listens to anything the EUseless has to say?

  • @taochiapet
    @taochiapet 4 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    it's the "extreme 'middle'" that's the problem. this documentary is fundamentally at odds with reality.

    • @psivil.disobedience
      @psivil.disobedience 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      The centrists in the US would be far right in most countries, ..

    • @muchomusiclibre
      @muchomusiclibre 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@psivil.disobedience In Europe certainly, but European centrism appears to be far left capitulation to Americans.

    • @taochiapet
      @taochiapet 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @J A radical contrarian, more like it?

  • @whatthef4222
    @whatthef4222 4 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    Good job on an interesting interview. Its too bad that the sound quality on Pinker's side was so poor.

  • @pocket83squared
    @pocket83squared 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Thanks guys, good content. You did great. Lots to think about.

  • @MariosR38
    @MariosR38 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Chomsky and other scientists accused him of cherry picking data in order to prove his point but he believes that it's their ideology (in this case chomsky's) that lead them to that. He insists that his data are correct even though the scientific community strongly opposed them. It seems like he can't face the accusastions head on or he is the one with an ideology bias. Anyway intresting convo.

  • @uforagain
    @uforagain 4 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    ask your interviewees to audio record at the site and you will get much better results.

  • @nealorr5086
    @nealorr5086 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Sounds like Pinker is just fine with the state of affairs in the US. The things he believes in are all things we've had for a while.

    • @Wuppie62
      @Wuppie62 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      You might have had a chance getting them several years ago, but not recently. I don't think Pinker 's very happy with the current state of affairs in the US, concerning the one(s) in power right now. But also concerning issues like progressive taxes, welfare, gun laws, racism, environment and climate, etc.

  • @guitarmusic524
    @guitarmusic524 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    I appreciate people who measure their words. Steven Pinker is an exemplar. Thanks, Dr. Pinker!

  • @johnfarley1212
    @johnfarley1212 4 ปีที่แล้ว +17

    Why didn't you ask Pinker about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein?

  • @urganodevotaton
    @urganodevotaton 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    There ought to be a conversation between Steven Pinker and Jared Diamond on the violence within/by states versus tribes topic. My understanding of Mr. Diamond on this issue is something like the following. Within a given tribe the rates of violence tend to be lower than in states. It is intertribal conflicts that make the incidents more numerous in tribal societies. That being said the magnitude of violence of the state far exceeds that of tribes due to the technology and power of states when it comes to war.

    • @karenness5588
      @karenness5588 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      The power of the modern state to wreak violence is definitely much greater, and therefore much more important to keep under strict limits because its potential is genocidal and on a scale a tribe can never achieve.

    • @TeaParty1776
      @TeaParty1776 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Relative to the population, tribal violence is much bigger. Each individual is much more likely to die from violence in tribal culture. Each individual! The bigger size of states does not change this refutation of commie peace and love.
      Also, all societies, including tribal, have states. Anthropologists discovered implicit, subtle states in kinship and clan relations in tribal cultures, even tho there is no formally separate state.

    • @urganodevotaton
      @urganodevotaton 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@TeaParty1776 Relative to the population each individual is much more likely to die from violence in tribal culture than in a state, at the hands of people within their tribe or from another tribe? Tribes tend to be isolated from each other and so there can be a great deal of the fear in the unknown in dealing with other tribes, but in the well adjusted tribes which are plenty you'd just be appalled by the commie peace and love.

    • @TeaParty1776
      @TeaParty1776 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@urganodevotaton > well adjusted tribes
      That sounds like Margaret Meads Leftist willingless to be defrauded by tribal people who evaded discussing widespread rape.

    • @TeaParty1776
      @TeaParty1776 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@urganodevotaton True. except for your mysterious well-adjusted tribes.
      Rational Optimism-Matt Ridley
      Better Angels-Steven Pinker
      Capitalism-Ayn Rand

  • @edwardlouisbernays2469
    @edwardlouisbernays2469 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    You guys are Great and Touch on sores in US propaganda to best benefit of Viewers! I "Loved" your Naom Chomsky interview.

    • @agentcooper6179
      @agentcooper6179 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      I have to ask, just out of curiosity. This isn’t by any means bait and this question is specifically for you.
      Why was the word loved put into parentheses in your comment?

    • @noamfinnegan8663
      @noamfinnegan8663 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Capitals and quotation Marks, I dont see brackets anywhere. TOE just seem dodgy to me, they'll know why. Steve's funny, a political bullshiter sitting pretty in the US.
      I call him Mr. Blinker for he'll try to put blinkers on his Audience ever chance he gets. 6 mins in and the vomit is almost never ending.

  • @bennieblanks5129
    @bennieblanks5129 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    I don't think it's fair to say that the right is pro Russia. In my experience, those on the right to whom Pinker was referring are anti interventionism, not necessarily pro Russia.

    • @kenhiett5266
      @kenhiett5266 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Exactly. This pro Russia nonsense was one of the most prolific examples of political propaganda warfare our young nation has ever experienced.

    • @d7dh523
      @d7dh523 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Me to I lost interest after it .. I think many scientists nowadays tell you things that they know for a fact it’s not true.

    • @Eyy98976
      @Eyy98976 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      The only people I have seen in America that seem to be pro Russian, are the fools running around waving the hammer and sickle flag. And I have yet to personally see anyone on the so called right, now automatically called “The Alt Right” waving such a flag. I have on the other hand seen multiple people who appeared to be on the left or sympathetic to the left waving this flag while they engaged in civil unrest. The fact that I saw this on national news though could simply just be another form of propaganda and misinformation spread to the public. As ANY and ALL news sources are Bias in their own way, especially “mainstream”.

  • @pedroluciano2643
    @pedroluciano2643 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The tribal nature of modern attitudes towards political positions is somthing we have seen brutally in Puerto Rico for ever. It seems to be growing.

  • @Puketapu
    @Puketapu 4 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    Endless leading questions

  • @JCResDoc94
    @JCResDoc94 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    completely sensible and well reasoned. gr8 vid.

  • @georgesprat9697
    @georgesprat9697 4 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    I've always preferred Steven Pinker to any of the other IDW "members". Say what you will about the excesses of identity politics on the left, the right remains far worse, and too many on the IDW spend far too little time highlighting this important point. I'm glad Pinker does point this out.
    Jordan Peterson, on the other hand, almost never criticizes the right, and when he does it he only goes after low-hanging fruit (white supremacists) briefly, and with almost no depth. That shows the difference between the two: Jordan Peterson positions himself as non-ideological, but he's very much on the right, while Steven Pinker is much closer to that ideal.

    • @kingtigertank42
      @kingtigertank42 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      I guess your mind blocked out that him saying that he only thinks the right is worse is because they have more power right now. Which implies he thinks the nature of the left is worse right now

    • @georgesprat9697
      @georgesprat9697 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@kingtigertank42 Don't recall that, but if he did say it or implied the left is worse right now, I would disagree anyway. And if he did say that or implied what you think he implied, then I would temper my praise of him.
      I find that the right is much worse, and by a number of metrics. For example, if you look up statistics of right-wing vs. left-wing violence at the moment, you'll find right-wing violence is a far worse problem.
      But I also think my broader point remains important, namely, that if you only ever seriously criticize the left you end up being a propagandist or useful idiot for the right.

    • @theredking9458
      @theredking9458 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      If you look at things as they are at this moment i think its quite hard to argue that the left is worse in politics, since the right has the power at the moment, what I think Jordan Peterson is doing is saying that the left will become worse later so we should do something about it now before its too late. But putting Jordan Peterson to the side for a moment, it's quite clear that the problems on the left with them playing identity politics is the reason they lost the election to Trump in 2016, since they essentially abandoned the working class (obviously not all the left but certainly what mattered of it) adn even those that didnt abandon the working class have still been forced to play identity politics (i.e Bernie Sanders), so I would say the most important thing to do now would be to fix the issues on the left so they have a leg to stand on in an election and then maybe they can get something done, otherwise the power is just gonna stay on the right, nothings gonna change. I mean you can stand around all day complaining about the right, but you've still gotta do something about it.

    • @georgesprat9697
      @georgesprat9697 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@theredking9458 I agree the excesses of identity politics did a disservice to the left in the 2016 election. Partly this is because the right-wing propaganda machine is very good at leveraging misdeeds by fringe people on the left as an attack on the left as a whole. While everyone's paying attention to unhinged college kids yelling at their professor, they forget that there continues to be a huge faction of Christian fundamentalists on the right with very scary and completely irrational worldviews.
      I should add: the Democrats abandoned the working class well before identity politics gained the huge prominence it has today. That happened decades ago.

    • @DryRaven
      @DryRaven 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      For me personally, the most penetrating argument I've ever heard against the right came from Peterson. I still think of his response all the time a year after I've heard it, and it's taught me to see many right wing tendencies as pride. You can see the topic clearly invokes his passion in the clip, it's something he genuinely cares about.
      th-cam.com/video/XmcQ6WHaSks/w-d-xo.html

  • @ShunyamNiketana
    @ShunyamNiketana 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I wonder if now, Pinker would still say that the right is "worse" when it comes to taking ideology too far, of being intolerant of competing viewpoints, etc.

  • @CometComment
    @CometComment 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    I see Pinker's Canadian Police, and I raise him 1930's Spain, no money, no greed, no crime and therefore no need for the police.

    • @MT-cx2mo
      @MT-cx2mo 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      I raise you the the brutal paleolithic,all former soviet republics after the collapse,many latin american countries that use nordic soft ass policies in violent societies(Uruguay,Argentina,Venezuela,etc).
      I could go on and on.Anarcho syndicalism would be a huge step back in human progress.
      Im from latin america and I can guarentee you that there nothing more horriying that growing up seeing murder with inmpunity.We need a state willing to rehabilite those who commit minor crime and punish those who harm or kill inocent citizen.All socialist countries had death penalty for a reason.Tankies knew whats up
      Oh and 1930 Spain was FAR from crimeless.Franco the fascist won because the republic was too busy infighting.Anarchotards vs socialists

    • @fritsieboiker8449
      @fritsieboiker8449 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Was the cause of the absence of crime the absence of police or vice versa?

    • @CometComment
      @CometComment 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I thought someone might ask that ;) It was actually the absence of money, therefore the absence of greed, therefore the absence of crime, and therefore the police went extinct . See Living Utopia 1997.

    • @fritsieboiker8449
      @fritsieboiker8449 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@CometComment I'll check that out. Thanks for the info ^^

    • @CometComment
      @CometComment 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      No problem. Always nice to find someone who genuinely wants to learn, instead of someone who claims to already know everything and just throws out insults like anotards or something.

  • @tr7b410
    @tr7b410 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    I find it interesting that the northern most spiritual cultures seem to go much deeper into the nature of consciousness- Buddhist/Hinduism & Taoism compared to the southern most regions of our planet-Aztec/Mayan & other indigenous tribes.

  • @dariasA88
    @dariasA88 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    Was a nice chance for asking him about his relationship with Epstein

  • @johnnguyen7171
    @johnnguyen7171 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    What a pleasure to listen to this informative interview. Thank you.

  • @josephpereira7238
    @josephpereira7238 4 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    Pinker made me really Re-examine my Position on Nietzche’s influence and work. Prior to reading Enlightenment Now, I didn’t know Nietzche still has such a huge (and he convinced me negative) influence on philosophical thinking and the cultural zeitgeist. I knew horrific damage had been done by the Nazi’s twisted interpretation of Nietzche, but thought other than that (a big ‘that’, I do not want to downplay the horror of the Second World War) had been limited to academia, essentially. I couldn’t believe my ignorance in that area of which I should have been responsible and looked into. Thank you Pinker

    • @jmanakajosh9354
      @jmanakajosh9354 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      How did you get through academia with a degree without reading Neitzsche praise Aryans and Vikings? Sad. Still this is silly *the Nazi took allot of their inspiration from America* ...litterally modeling their racism off of ideas here, and modeling laws for Jewish oppression off of Jim Crow. Nazism is at home in America the left's fear and reaction no matter how crazy is merely the realization of that fact.

    • @AwesometownUSA
      @AwesometownUSA 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Don’t thank him - just give him some supple young girls on whom he can secrete all his gross fluids D:

    • @rickmarlow3389
      @rickmarlow3389 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Pinker is a lightweight. He impresses weak minds/

    • @matthewkopp2391
      @matthewkopp2391 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Read Carl Jung’s response to Nietzsche. The issue is that it is unwise to follow a value system just because you ought to. It is better to become consciously aware of oneself and go through a trans-valuation process. If we don’t go through such a process, even what we consider a genuine value can become a completely one sided stupidity. Right now I see one-sided value systems as one of the worst bulwarks to human flourishing.

    • @TheDatabaseDude
      @TheDatabaseDude 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@rickmarlow3389 You should not make such statements in the form you did where you proclaim your opinion as if it was a fact but then provide no explanation or proof or even an argument to backup your opinion.
      When you do that it implies that you are not a thinker.
      If you had prepended your statement with "I think that", it would probably be perceived better but as it stands most people will think just the opposite of your proclamation since it is perceived as simply a statement with no thought behind it.
      And perhaps perception is reality in this case.

  • @neurophilosophers994
    @neurophilosophers994 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    The issue with arguments against the radical left is that you acknowledge the persistence of a radical right that was left unchallenged and became the implicit status quo. In this way the radical left is just a balancing mechanism. Ofc if the radical left got everything they wanted they’d regret it because they don’t understand things deeply enough. But the radical left isn’t meant to win it’s meant to counterbalance the radical right. The fear people have that the radical left could win originates either in the sense that their position is in fact morally superior or that their position which is morally abusive is under threat(guilty conscience of the right).

  • @warwicklecoture3685
    @warwicklecoture3685 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Good Q and A about "progress" around the 20 minute mark. Good detail and follow ups. I think that issues around progress are a big part of why Pinker is famous, so it's a good topic to explore.

    • @brocklewis9693
      @brocklewis9693 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Read "Civilized to Death" by Christopher Ryan. Pinker's understanding of "human progress" are not at all mainstream anthropological consensus. He is just another psychologist speaking about topics that he has little-to-no expertise in. What's up with Psychology? Really seems to pump out a lot of academics that embody the Dunning Kruger effect.

    • @warwicklecoture3685
      @warwicklecoture3685 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@brocklewis9693 interesting. I think psychology fills some of the space left by religion, hence the rise of popular psychologists. Can you please link to any succinct summaries of what you consider to be a mainstream anthropological consensus? Id be interested to follow that up before diving into a book. Thanks

  • @steverichard-preston7943
    @steverichard-preston7943 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    All issues should be judged on a case by case basis, not ideology. 👏👏👏

  • @stevebeckerlcsw3409
    @stevebeckerlcsw3409 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Wonderful. Pinker’s such an unpretentious guy. Really refreshing.

  • @JustinPavoni
    @JustinPavoni 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    I appreciate that Dr. Pinker is level-headed and decent in his conversation. He makes fair critiques of many tendencies of individuals on both the left and the right. As an anarcho-capitalist libertarian, which he mentioned, I am not against regulations, I'm against initiating violence. Externalities, like pollution (which are legitimate problems and should be handled) should simply be handled by the courts. Government (which is necessary) should simply be financed by voluntary donation rather than taxation and fiat currency. Libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle and thus that all human relationships should be voluntary and consensual, that's it.

    • @lxgaucher
      @lxgaucher 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Pollution is handled by the courts ... extremely badly. Poor people living in polluted areas have no realistic chance of defeating a company with a battery of lawyers. Voluntary taxation? Go read “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by Thomas Piketty to see what just weak taxation leads to. You’re an ideologue in love with abstractions which fail in the real world.

    • @JustinPavoni
      @JustinPavoni 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@lxgaucher agree to disagree mate. ideologue yes - mine is a moral belief that initiating violence is wrong. The interesting thing is that most human beings accept this in their personal lives as "don't steal, don't kill, don't lie." Libertarians simply don't give the state a pass on the ethic. I would suggest Murray Rothbard's "Man Economy and State" but here is an Austrian take on Picketty if anyone here is interested in a critique from the other side: th-cam.com/video/aL90pISm7Y8/w-d-xo.html

    • @Apjooz
      @Apjooz 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Claim on property is also initiation of violence. Because what is the starting point of any property? It's "This is mine, don't fuck with it or I will kill you". That's use of violence.

    • @jmanakajosh9354
      @jmanakajosh9354 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Oh yes, let's take everyone to court. Surely oil companies can't buy judges the way insurance companies bought Joe Biden

    • @JustinPavoni
      @JustinPavoni 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Apjooz It's the homesteading principle (original appropriation of previously unused or abandoned natural factors of production) - originally by John Locke

  • @ApexEater
    @ApexEater 4 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    Pinker strawmans Chomsky and dismisses him as anarchist here. To say that societies with a "state" are less violent is a gross oversimplification similar to handing capitalism a victory for the advances of modern society as if products and markets only rise out of rigid proprietary hierarchies. Pinker is the stereotypical enlightened centrist that is often parodied. He chooses to ignore the bottom up movements that allow any forms of democracy to exist in the first place, so his loathing of "socialism" makes him an obvious hypocrite. This type of obsequious thought circle is what allows moral people to compromise their values under duress or other powerful influences in hierarchical structures which in turn is what allows disparities and atrocities to manifest in the first place. The Pinkers of the world are what Chomsky warns about. "Manufacturing Consent"

    • @jmanakajosh9354
      @jmanakajosh9354 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Pinker is a liar liars can't make actual arguments

    • @jmanakajosh9354
      @jmanakajosh9354 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @Lying Eyes For your lack of knowledge of informed consent, perhaps you should read the 5 filters and try to apply them for a couple days. Our recent "Iran drone" b.s. is a great example, we've got an embargo on Iran we've surrounded them militarily they shoot down a drone (possibly in their air-space) and suddenly they're an aggressor....an unmanned drone? C'mon. Just try looking at the filters for like a week you'll start seeing it.
      I agree with your armchair sentiment but from the left. Anarchists like Chomsky (I mean the word in a technical sense) are just classical liberals who read Kropotkin one time. They've missed the whole point. And they've totally disengaged from Marx, who knew that getting the State to act in a way that helped everyday working people had to happen in the more developed countries 1st. (And that's exactly why he thought that movement would start in Britain and that's exactly what we've seen, we bombed Vietnam back into the stone age and almost nuked early china) if socialism doesn't create a peaceful first world, than socialism may never happen. But Chomsky has no solutions, no anti-fa, no fight, no methodology, no plan, no vanguard, and nobody he'll even campaign for.
      All he has is criticism *of a system he tacitly supports through passivity*

    • @ApexEater
      @ApexEater 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @Lying Eyes Come on dude, what are you even talking about? Democracy itself is a collective movement which only exist in the degree to which it is demanded FROM THE BOTTOM UP. I can't think of any example in history where the advantaged or powerful just woke up one day and gave the peasants below them a seat at the table. These things have to be demanded. True, in modern industrial societies just the threat of disruption is often sufficient to sway the elite into compromise, but all movements require a minimal collective engagement before the pendulum swings in their favor. Democracy is messy and fleeting.

    • @jmanakajosh9354
      @jmanakajosh9354 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Lying Eyes I'm sorry I misinterpreted you, didnt realize we agreed.

    • @MassDefibrillator
      @MassDefibrillator 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @Lying Eyes So let's look at what that constitution looks like. when it refers to "we the people" what it is actually referring to is white land owners. This is not a controversial statement. Going from that, to where the us is now, and "we the people" represents huge swaths of different people, is the result of a long and difficult bottom up struggle, including the labour movement and civil rights movement.

  • @moosemix8266
    @moosemix8266 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I like this approach to making a documentary / current events feature length film. in particular, I note the tag-team strategy for the interview. how is it going? I've just subscribed. :)

  • @rogerroger5649
    @rogerroger5649 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Another person to add to the list that I would like to sit and talk with over dinner or drinks or something like that.

    • @mpgallogly
      @mpgallogly 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Hide your kids hide your wife!

  • @anthonycostello6055
    @anthonycostello6055 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    I certainly have my disagreements with Pinker on several issues, but thank God he mentioned up front the problem with leftist "standpoint" epistemology. My goodness, what a bane on civilization!

  • @mauricios3267
    @mauricios3267 4 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    So Dr. Peterson risking his career to standup for freedom of speech and against compelled speech is not in the vein of enlightenment values because he says that religion has a value we should consider instead of simply disregarding it as useless irrationally?
    I disagree with that sentiment.

    • @georgesprat9697
      @georgesprat9697 4 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      Please. Peterson's "bold" stance against "compelled speech" was neither brave, nor principled. It was a way for him to re-frame the fact he had told his students he wouldn't use their preferred pronouns, which made him look transphobic. It was also a convenient issue that happened to align with his right-wing values. If Peterson starts standing up for free speech for critics of Israel, or for Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the US anthem, then I'll consider taking him seriously.

    • @jmanakajosh9354
      @jmanakajosh9354 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      People always justify the views of reactionaries like Peterson, it's only when you talk about leftist do we suddenly say "oh they were right about this but all their other ideas are evil"

    • @jfuite
      @jfuite 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@georgesprat9697 Perhaps we have each been exposed to different versions of Jordan Peterson. I think his stance regarding the legislation in his Province was VERY brave. Many right leaning (that is not radical left) academics have had their careers derailed or have been fired for politically incorrect views on campus in Canada. That he became so famous, so quickly was testament that his vocal position was newsworthy because it was rare, nearly singular. And, we all know that individuals standing up alone (on the left or right) are easily squished by the system. He was very brave, and principled, and risked much.
      Oh, by the way, if you want to see him voice support for Colin Kaepernick, check out his Twitter feed, "Dr Jordan B Peterson", 2017 Aug 13, where he expressed surprise at a sympathetic CNN article: "CNN (?!) Colin Kaepernick and James Damore deserve credit for putting careers on the line". And, of course he would stand up for free speech for critics of Israel, because he stands up for free speech, period. If you want to listen to his rather tentative, "middle-of-the-road", non radical views on Israel and Palestine, you could watch TH-cam video "Jordan Peterson on Jerusalem and Israel/Palestine", th-cam.com/video/o9BbQyg7zwQ/w-d-xo.html. Maybe these are not your views, but I do not think they disqualify him from being "taken seriously".

    • @georgesprat9697
      @georgesprat9697 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@jfuite I'm very familiar with Jordan Peterson because I followed his rise to fame from the start. I was on an anti-SJW binge at the time, so that video of students protesting him was in my feed the day it was posted. That video was the start of his rise to fame.
      As an aside, as much as watching bizarre and seemingly unhinged student activists on campus was weirdly fascinating, in a car-wreck kind of way, I never fully bought into the moral panic that "post-modern neo-marxists" were taking over various segments of society.
      I'm sure it's possible that some right-leaning academics have had their careers derailed, but that might be simply because there's lots of academics in the world, so you can always find examples of outliers. Even then, which ones did you have in mind, and what made them lose their careers (or get derailed)?
      Jordan Peterson rose to fame initially because he rode the wave of anti-SJW popularity on TH-cam that existed at the time (and still exists? I don't know...) by courting controversy against trans activists. It increased even more because he argued effectively against feminist talking points in his Cathy Newman interview, and the cultural right (AKA the "alt-light", formerly "alt-right" until Richard Spencer highjacked the term) abhors modern feminism and all the identity politics that have come with it. His popularity continued because he's articulate and very adept at speaking with deepity (like, e.g. Deepak Chopra). Google "deepity" if you haven't read the term before. His fame is NOT a result of his "bravery". It was opportunistic, and he's a talented speaker.
      Your evidence that Peterson has voiced support for left-wing voices being silenced is weak. His tweet of the CNN article you cite was likely because he was standing up for James Damore, which he's done ad nauseam. The fact the article referenced Colin Kaepernick was probably irrelevant to Peterson.
      Whether or not Peterson's views on the Isreal-Palestine conflict are reasonable says nothing about whether he's stood up for critics of Israel being silenced. I'm willing to give him the credit that if pressed, he would probably give a principled answer and say no voices should be silenced, no matter the political view being expressed. But if he was truly a principled free-speech supporter, he also wouldn't have filed frivolous defamation lawsuits against people who've said mean things about him (and one of these people said it in private!).

    • @ntodd6627
      @ntodd6627 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@georgesprat9697 "Please. Peterson's "bold" stance against "compelled speech" was neither brave, nor principled."
      I'll go you one better - his stance against "compelled speech" was a fraud - a total shuck. It was based on his reaction to a non-event - a complete myth (in the bad sense of the word).

  • @ewthmatth
    @ewthmatth ปีที่แล้ว +1

    47:03 "thank you for your time" wth.. I ended the video here and it took me a whole week to notice I had left 10 minutes of video unwatched. If you guys are continuing the interview you should edit out the first sign-off/ good-bye so people don't get confused.

  • @insanisstultitia3119
    @insanisstultitia3119 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Do not blame Universities for your own faults and dissolution of the utopian society your world view wished it to be. Coming from academia and business world, University is a melting pot of ideas and unvarnished history of events. You are free to accept history, research and debate at your will. Plain and simple. The notion that Universities are left or right or what ever factories is total ignorant of academia as a whole.

  • @samre7870
    @samre7870 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    @​ he didn't say why he choose violence and how often it happened to judge progress. Chomsky never said his is a pacifist. He accept some kind of violence and reject other. He specifically reject violence from state or tyrannical structures which Pinker is underrating. Nobody is saying that violence against kids or women didn't decrease but Pinker is comparing a homicide to a genocide or at least approach them as comparable. He sounds like he wants to ignore the subjective experience of a human and replace it with logic based on statistics. For a person born a thousand years ago violence that would degrade the quality of their life is not their parents abusing them or their 9th brother dying in a fight, which happened a lot more back then, this kind of violence might have given life more meaning.

  • @cameronlaurie5734
    @cameronlaurie5734 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Shoulda asked him about Epstein, Little St. James and Virginia Jefferies

    • @davidanderson9664
      @davidanderson9664 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Why? He had nothing to do with that. Try judging people on actual EVIDENCE rather than the ravings of idiots. D.A., J.D. (lawyer) NYC

  • @yelyab1
    @yelyab1 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    What is the difference between enlightenment and self actualization? When Bill Murray was granted “total consciousness “ at death as a tip for being the Dali Lama’s caddy (the Lama was a big hitter, you know) , was that like 10 units of enlightenment.

  • @rkoh3740
    @rkoh3740 4 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    Bernie 2020. If your a Bernie sceptic and believe we need to address govt corruption and corporate greed than you owe it yourself to watch his interview on the joe rogan podcast.

    • @BoneyScribes
      @BoneyScribes 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      You're

    • @BoneyScribes
      @BoneyScribes 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      You're

    • @rkoh3740
      @rkoh3740 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      BoneyScribes
      Yes you caught a spelling error of mine
      Have a great day

    • @contrapranto7756
      @contrapranto7756 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@BoneyScribes To paraphrase a great thinker of our times: your spiritually illiterate if an ortographical mistake catches you're attention.

  • @kenleary7484
    @kenleary7484 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    i'm going to look into Jose Maria Gomez to see what Pinker is talking about, but few of the tribes or whatever had mini-guns, napalm, hydrogen bombs, or the ability to carpet bomb civilizations. What tribe, or "band" of men had the capability to wipe out millions of people during a single action such as has been done since WW1.

  • @mykotron
    @mykotron 4 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    "In some areas the left has gone off the tracks but still the contemporary American right is far worse" - Steven Pinker
    100% agree

    • @jmanakajosh9354
      @jmanakajosh9354 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Every time the left has gone off the tracks it's because of people like Steven Pinker who encourage *ignoring the left as a global movement*

    • @mykotron
      @mykotron 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      j man every time hey? Cool. Who is gonna try and get the right back on track?

    • @jmanakajosh9354
      @jmanakajosh9354 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@mykotron The left or the right?
      I think Jordan Peterson despite being part of the alt-right pipeline causes some normal conservatives to lean more left. I've no idea who'll get the right back to sanity...I hope it doesn't happen tho right-wingers ideology is ignorance incarnate

    • @flipgsp
      @flipgsp 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@jmanakajosh9354 How is Jordan in the "alt right pipeline"? Serious question.

    • @jmanakajosh9354
      @jmanakajosh9354 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@flipgsp
      Jordan Peterson is a tradcon and he appears on tradcon media that has misinformation and alt-righters in it (mostly PragerU). It's less of a function of his ideas and more of a function of the algorithm and the fact that people in his audience have brought up "the Jewish question" frequently. I don't consider Peterson nearly as far right as say even your average Trump rallier or Ben Shapiro he doesn't say openly disparaging things about minorities, but he has spread misinformation and has made platforms that spread lies more popular.
      *Unfortunately thought leaders must be held accountable for their followers. Deniability only works when you give good arguments against bad people*

  • @minusstage3
    @minusstage3 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Absolutely terrific job. The final segment was fun. Props to Steven for being real.

  • @johns.7297
    @johns.7297 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Political ideology=intellectual peacock feathers. Pinker, fortunately, likes to base his arguments on evidence.

  • @waterkingdavid
    @waterkingdavid 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Pinker endlessly talks about things getting better and better (of course all the while remaining politically correct by injecting a comment or two here and there to indicate his apparent concern about climate issues!). I wonder if we shouldn't be concerned lest things get too good!
    As Christopher Hedges said Pinker needs to get out of Harvard more. I disagree. Wouldn't like to see that fine head of hair get ruffled would we now!
    Ivory towers are so much nicer than the cruel reality of the experience of vast numbers of humans and other species on this earth which could and should be so far more respected. Earth is truly sacred if we would only take the time to look.
    Of course Pinker and his wealthy friends who run the show have better things to do.

    • @waterkingdavid
      @waterkingdavid 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Craig Jones And that was due to people who made sacrifices and were not satisfied with the terrible way things were.
      Same with the equivalent of human rights activists of those times.
      Pinker basically naysays such people at the present time who point to the very real suffering that absolutely does exist today.
      His books sell millions cause people don't want to know about it. They are happier to have their conscience pacified by Pimkers stats.
      When you're really suffering stats mean nothing.
      So agreed that globally things may indeed be better. But disagree with Pinker's dismissal of those showing the real problems of the day and his proud selfcongratulatory attitude which helps himself get a nice buck and gives peace of mind to those relatively well off.
      I bet you spend little time with those who suffer terribly.
      All good things to you. Let's just not be satisfied with turning our backs even more on those in need.

    • @jmanakajosh9354
      @jmanakajosh9354 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      better things to do ie. child trafficking

  • @danielvalleduarte
    @danielvalleduarte 4 ปีที่แล้ว +25

    Epstein Flight logs.

    • @muchomusiclibre
      @muchomusiclibre 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @Woodworking Fangirl He's tried repeatedly to distance himself from his relationship with Epstein, but there's pictures of the two of them together in 2013, after Epstein was convicted.

    • @danielvalleduarte
      @danielvalleduarte 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@muchomusiclibre exactly

  • @jaygerlach6884
    @jaygerlach6884 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Guys, the conversation that you had with Mr. Pinker - ask the exact same questions to Dr. Stephen Hicks - You'll get a much different discussion. He'll actually define the terms that Mr. Pinker wasn't willing to define.

    • @hooligan9794
      @hooligan9794 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Being willing to define terms is no guarantee that those definitions make sense.

  • @Waaben21
    @Waaben21 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Its so poor and dividing to talk about left and right.

  • @rationalsceptic7634
    @rationalsceptic7634 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Author of remarkable Books on Language and Cognitive Science

  • @spiritualpolitics8205
    @spiritualpolitics8205 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Pinker straw mans a lot here, as if the U.S. is remotely close to anarcho-capitalism in its large social benefit commitments already, or as if the U.S. isn't one of the most successful (if not singular) ethnic melting pots in world history -- rather than in danger of becoming a Bannon-like ethnostate.
    He is solid on calling out the fringes of both sides, but his emphases are distorted...

    • @brocklewis9693
      @brocklewis9693 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Indeed, he does straw man a lot here; trying to imply that American Leftists today want to replicate... North Korea? Venezuela? The USSR? What? And it's entirely unclear to me who he MEANS by "Leftists"--all of the good christian Socialists that I know are nothing like what he is describing.
      Straw-men all around, indeed. It's sad that Pinker is the best that moderates can muster, but it's not surprising. They have nothing. They have even less than conservatives.

    • @spiritualpolitics8205
      @spiritualpolitics8205 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Sweet Pea
      It is no small thing however that America is as diverse as it is and gets along as well as it does -- this being an outlier in world history... America is one of the most ethnically diverse, harmonious societies in the history of the world.
      Compare us with the roiling racial tensions of France, which is far more bigoted. Or to the ethnic homogeneity of Mexico, which is far less diverse.
      Ethnic minorities from around the world continually line up to come here -- precisely because America is so welcoming to so many diverse peoples, despite its past sins that still ramify today...
      There is no nation in the world that doesn't have fraught histories of groups at one point or another oppressing each other.

  • @valentinakaramazova1007
    @valentinakaramazova1007 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Even if what Pinker says about pre-state societies is true, how would that refute anarchist ideas? Chomsky is an anarchosyndicalist, and as such proposes a highly organised society, but this organisation aims at satisfying human needs and not profit. I don't believe he has ever stated that pre-state societies were devoid of violence or at least were less violent than state societies, or indeed that we should go back to them. That seems to me to be the idea of anarchism possessed by people who have never bothered to look up what anarchists actually believe, other than perhaps a dictionary definition of the term anarchy as "without a state; lawlessness"
    Even if Chomsky had said that, it does not mean anything about " scientific evidence refuting anarchist ideas".

  • @murtadha96
    @murtadha96 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Absolutely love Steven Pinker

  • @liedersanger1
    @liedersanger1 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    He left out France in his list of nations where the Enlightenment occurred..

    • @johnnytocino9313
      @johnnytocino9313 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      As well as where the political terms left and right came from.

  • @leonardzane
    @leonardzane 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Brilliant application of reason and germane facts to identify increasing individual and social well-being. Hear, hear!

  • @jared_r
    @jared_r 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    The left/right labels aren’t just meaningless in contemporary American politics, they are the source of the worst illusory divisions and are only counterproductive; we’d be much better off abandoning them completely.

  • @ian2armannduccio
    @ian2armannduccio 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Sorry, but I lasted 30 seconds because the sound quality is atrocious.
    Keep doing these things but have some respect. Does Pinker deserve to have what he's saying distorted and mutilated? Do we deserve to have our ears tortured just because we want to hear his words?
    Do some basic management and sort this out.

    • @Brianhartmanmusic
      @Brianhartmanmusic 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Meh, the interviewers sounds like children, what do you expect?

  • @HeraldoS2
    @HeraldoS2 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    By minute 3, this man had said more than 100 words that had never been used in US politics before

  • @DarrylWhiteguitar
    @DarrylWhiteguitar 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Such a smart man

  • @nicholasschroeder3678
    @nicholasschroeder3678 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    I admire both Pinker and Chomsky and both are worth listening to and reading. But neither are shouters who argue ad hominem

  • @MethenySco
    @MethenySco 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    The academy is more 'left', especially in the arts, because the western canon itself, beginning with the Enlightenment, is liberal and is at very foundation of democratic principles, minus some obvious exceptions which today are rejected (ex eugenics).

    • @douglascarkuff1969
      @douglascarkuff1969 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      It certainly makes no sense to consider authoritarian leftism/"progressivism" to be in any meaningful sense liberal.Yes, progressives no longer openly advocate for eugenics or scientific racism, but the impulse toward coercive social engineering from which these abominations sprang remain.

    • @brocklewis9693
      @brocklewis9693 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      ​@@douglascarkuff1969
      Socialism and authoritarianism are completely antithetical. The USSR called itself Socialist for the same reason the Nazis did; it plays well. The USA played into the USSR calling itself Socialist because they were smart propagandists and realized that if the citizens in the USA actually knew what Socialism was, their would likely be a political revolution.
      Liberalism =/= Socialism. Socialism =/= Authoritarianism.
      Socialism is about Democracy in the Workplace.
      The USSR being labeled "Communist" is one of the worst tragedies of the 20th century. Authoritarian? Absolutely. Centrally planned? Absolutely. Socialism? Not even remotely close.

    • @matthewkopp2391
      @matthewkopp2391 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      I went to two art schools. There was not a rejection of “the canon” in either school. There was an expansion of the canon both in literature and visual art. But people study western art as the core still.
      And as far as I am concerned the western canon does not start with the enlightenment. If you start there with literature you miss Chaucer, and Shakespeare, Dante, and Eschenbach as well as ancient epics Virgil, Homer, Beowulf etc.
      Why start in the enlightenment?

    • @jamesdoctor8079
      @jamesdoctor8079 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Matthew Kopp not to mention the republic by Plato, seminal work for classical liberalism

    • @defenstrator4660
      @defenstrator4660 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@brocklewis9693 I understand that you wish to believe this, but socialism is inherently authoritarian, since it does not rely on free individuals making their own decisions. This is the inherent flaw that causes all socialist societies to become more authoritarian. I understand that socialists like to ignore history and play an elaborate game of pretend where all the fascist and communist states that oppressed, enslaved, tortured, and murdered people weren't really socialist, but it's a lie. They absolutely were doing their best to be socialist states and dealt with individuals who tried to liberal as the enemies to the system they were.

  • @FEAR_IsTheMindKiller
    @FEAR_IsTheMindKiller 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Cheap shot at anarchism with his answer to the final question about Chomsky. So the state/nation-state system was the only possible way of ever bringing social progress?

  • @JackPoynter
    @JackPoynter 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Pinker needs to learn more about climate change,and its causes. How sad. He has been one of my favorite scientists for decades.

    • @jmanakajosh9354
      @jmanakajosh9354 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Well I'm glad you're starting (at least starting) to see how stupid Pinker is Potholer 54 is great if you need your climate denial healed

    • @JackPoynter
      @JackPoynter 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@jmanakajosh9354 I'm a conservative skeptic as regards "climate change." Pinker made some comment that made me say that. He needs more education is all.

    • @jmanakajosh9354
      @jmanakajosh9354 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@JackPoynter Skeptics are people who challenge ideas that go unquestioned and and have no evidence like anti-vaxxers or creationists. Is there a challenge that you can articulate against climate science? *Preferably a challenge from someone with expertise?* It's not usual for people to just take your word for things...if you came up to me and told me about the wonders of bloodletting I'd point you to a med-student or publication. Do you have a good reason to be skeptical?

    • @JackPoynter
      @JackPoynter 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@jmanakajosh9354 I'm 74, Iman. I've lived through a complete climate cycle. I watched the global cooling hysteria when I was young and first married in the latter part of the 20th century. Then it all went away, then the global warming hysteria began in the 21st century, and lasted 'til now. But the climate is now descendinging into the global cooling phase of the climate cycle, and has been in spite of the Alarmist's efforts to fake the temp data. It should continue to get cool until around 2030-2035, at which time you all can start up your global warming nonsense again.
      The food crops in the American midwest have been rained out and snowed out this year, and in consequence next year food prices will go through the roof. What happens after that will depend on on where the cooling strikes next year, which is patchy at this point in the cycle.
      But you don't have to take my word for anything. Just wait, Mother Nature will carve you a new one, if you're not careful, and maybe even if you are careful. The solar cycle, or at least this one, there are several, lasts about 60 years, and is driven by solar dynamics. We are currently into a Grand Solar Minimum, which cycle has produced cooling and warming since time began, a process which is clearly demonstrated by ice core proxies, if you care to look, which evidently you don't.
      Anthropogenic Global Warming is a political scan, and consensus is a political concept; experimentation, proof and counter-proof drives science.
      You have a nice life, you hear? I see no need for further debate on the subject between you and me.

    • @jmanakajosh9354
      @jmanakajosh9354 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@JackPoynter "Evidently I don't"
      Ya know what old timer you're probably right. I probably don't care. If I got my views from people you're age the world just wouldn't make sense.
      "the climate is now descendinging into the global cooling phase of the climate cycle"
      If the climate is in a cooling phase why is the global average temperature increasing?
      "Alarmist's efforts to fake the temp data."
      *and then I realize you don't think the data is real*
      This is why people don't engage with your age group, the truth is you've been fed lies for so long, you can't investigate the truth.
      When you go to investigate the truth you can't go there with your mind already made up.
      "Mother nature will carve you a new one"
      It already is. I've lived in Alaska for a decade and not once has Anchorage ever been this hot....but that's neither here nor there. What matters is the global average. If you think the NOAA and NASA are lying about climate data, than I've got ask *do you think the moon landing was real?*
      usatoday.com/story/news/weather/2019/07/05/alaska-heat-wave-anchorage-90-degrees-july-4-set-all-time-record/1655873001/
      "Experimentation, proof"
      I think the word you where looking for is evidence. I wish the best to you, I honestly do, I hope one day we can make a drug to make people less hard-headed when they get older, you're so close to being right.

  • @mrtriffid
    @mrtriffid 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Why is that interviewer so obsessed with "Enlightenment Thinkers" and the "traditional (if there is one) view of progress?" The enlightenment was an historical period that existed only as recently as 250 years ago. A lot has happened in 250 years! Any answer to these types of questions are, AT BEST, purely academic.
    The stinger is that the interviewer himself qualifies the question with "if there is one." Because, clearly, ideas about "progress" (such as they were) were variegated, and Enlightenment thinkers included French, German, and other Continental philosophers as well as the British that Pinker mentions.
    BTW, Hegel was not an Enlightenment philosopher.

    • @marcchehab7187
      @marcchehab7187 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Well Pinker wrote a book "enlightenment now!" meaning it's how he defines his political stance. So I think that makes sense.

    • @tomdouglas6082
      @tomdouglas6082 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Because the Enlightenment is possibly / probably philosophically the most important event to have happened to Western civilization ever. You're a big boy plenty smart you can figure that out.Look up what Chou en Lai remarked 50 years ago about that period coupled with the French Revolution....
      He got it!

    • @jmanakajosh9354
      @jmanakajosh9354 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@tomdouglas6082
      Nope definitely communism, historical materialism, english case-based law definitely the most important things to ever happen in Western civilization.
      Who the hell bases their constitutions on John Locke?
      Nobody else in the world

  • @frankbauerful
    @frankbauerful 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    This interview suffers a lot from the audio quality issues. You should not have conducted the interview with this setup.

  • @Appleblade
    @Appleblade 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    @20:00 ... that's the common view, but Freeman Dyson mentions a Chinese physicist who argues the universe doesn't obey this rule of order tending to disorder... because of gravity, as the universe started out homogeneous gas, now some hot regions get hotter, cold colder, and order increases. Also, evolution is an obvious counter-example... selective pressures perfect living things, not in general terms, but for fitness to their ecological niche and the success of their offspring.

  • @lilyguo6058
    @lilyguo6058 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    It’s amazing and sad that in the age of Trump and radicalized Republicans, the question is rarely if ever asked about the political right going to far. It’s a case of willfully blindness.

    • @jmanakajosh9354
      @jmanakajosh9354 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      They can't see the virus, so when they cough on you without a mask it's not REALLY harmful.
      They can't see your medical bill so when you survive COVID & go bankrupt it's not REALLY harmful.

  • @tj2636
    @tj2636 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Steven Pinker is one of my favorite people to listen to, if not the favorite. Thanks for hosting him!

  • @Reno_Slim
    @Reno_Slim 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    The notion that you have to have power to be a racist has never appeared in any definition of racist I've ever seen.

    • @brocklewis9693
      @brocklewis9693 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      It's almost like Pinker is constructing a particularly boring & combustible straw man...

    • @nemsimic
      @nemsimic 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      That's interesting, during my time in University (in Canada) I've had at least four different sociology professors and an English professor use power as a defining characteristic of racism.

    • @toddhensley880
      @toddhensley880 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      It is not the definition of racist I would use, but I have many times heard “lack of power” as the reason some think non-white people can’t be “racist”.

    • @roodborstkalf9664
      @roodborstkalf9664 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Racism is a very powerful instrument used in the ongoing power game between "tribes" in modern multicultural societies. The definition is nowadays so constructed that it can nearly always be argued that anti-white racism doesn't exist.

    • @Reno_Slim
      @Reno_Slim 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@nemsimic
      It sounds like at least four sociology professors at the university you went to should invest in an actual dictionary and not use made up definitions not used outside academic sociology.

  • @sprattmann4541
    @sprattmann4541 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Intelligent gentlemen that with all of their intellect, yet are bankrupt in wisdom.
    "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." - God on Pinker, Chomsky, Harris et al.

  • @robgoren8628
    @robgoren8628 4 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    Left is Labor - those who earn income from wages
    Right is Investor Class - those who obtain profit by exploiting labor

    • @fritsieboiker8449
      @fritsieboiker8449 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Not that I necessarily disagree entirely, but I do think it's more nuanced than that. Political ideation isn't rooted in just economics. And economics isn't just distribution of capital gain. But I do agree with the underlying notion.

    • @robgoren8628
      @robgoren8628 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@fritsieboiker8449 Every war, every coup, every death squad is mobilized for the protection of capital, usually from the nationalization of resources or the organizing of labor. Even Wahabiism & Isis are sponsored by the West to protect the petrodollar & petro industry.
      Venezuela, Iran, Syria - oil & natural gas
      Bolivia - lithium

    • @leoarnstein9444
      @leoarnstein9444 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      If that were true the left would outnumber the right 100x over. They don’t.

    • @jolima
      @jolima 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Leo - they actually do, that’s why the rightwing politicians have increasingly used religion and other emotional identity politics to distract from there true goals. E.g originally the republicans where pro choice, but then realised they can get a big amount of religious voters by adopting anti-abortion ideals.

    • @robgoren8628
      @robgoren8628 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@jolima 100% true. Jordan Peterson practically invented identity politics to conflate it with the Left. His Senate speech is ludicrous performance art, where he portrays Bill C16 like some fascist takeover of free speech. But it worked. He got Doug Ford elected.

  • @johnnytocino9313
    @johnnytocino9313 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Historically you can define what is left and what is right. It came from the assembly after the french revolution of 1789. The noblility land-owning class sat on the righr and the rest sat on the left. So when Pinker admits that the left he defines as people who are sypathetic to socialism is not wrong. If one is having trouble defining what is right or left start from the origin of the term. Sure advances and changes i society have occurred and what would be consided the left back a just a few decades could be considered right wing today.

  • @starkravingnormal9305
    @starkravingnormal9305 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Flew on Epstein's plane?

  • @stevebeers9768
    @stevebeers9768 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    When I was in a major state college Business, Economics, Engineering departments were all right leaning (and they were not small, being about 50 percent of student body and professors); humanities and social sciences other than economics were all left; most natural sciences somewhere in the middle, none, or mixed political ideology. Journalism and film attracted liberals essentially because if you were more money minded in career direction you went into other majors. Art was apolitical, but culturally tolerant or "alternative." If the left academy had any systematic hegemonic edge, it was in dominating the introductory government, history, and English courses that were required of every major.

  • @kyleleehufnagel
    @kyleleehufnagel 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Woah a bunch of rich, ivy-league elite intelligentsia have a conversation about those with a critical lens pointed to the hierarchies of power. I bet they are very even handed.

    • @kyleleehufnagel
      @kyleleehufnagel 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Just the saddest indictment of modern discourse is the fact that these other men share a platform with Chomsky at all, let alone setting up a 3 against 1 “conversation.”

  • @dankindcom
    @dankindcom 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    19:54 left to our own devices, we’ll just entropically peace the fuck out of here✌️ human progress takes work