Steven Pinker: Why Heterodoxy Matters in the World
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 มิ.ย. 2019
- Best-selling author Steven Pinker considers why open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement matter beyond the academy. He makes the case that healthy colleges and universities equip citizens, scientists, policymakers, parents, and others with the habits of heart and mind necessary to advance the human condition.
Keynote Speaker:
Steven Pinker
Department of Psychology, Harvard University
Talkback Host:
Nick Gillespie
Editor at Large
Reason
In order to address society’s most intractable problems, learners must weave together the best ideas from a range of perspectives. The HxA Annual Conference and Open Inquiry Awards convened over 430 HxA members, community leaders, administrators, philanthropists, and students to discuss key issues at the core of HxA’s mission: open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in the academy.
Taking place June 20-21, 2019 at the Sheraton Times Square New York, the program focused on advancing discourse, providing tools, offering solutions, and fostering heterodox-positive cultures on campuses and in disciplines. The Open Inquiry Awards honored the institutions and individuals doing the complex work of improving classrooms, campuses, and scholarship.
Subscribe to the HxA Channel here: th-cam.com/users/HeterodoxAc...
Follow HxA on Twitter: / hdxacademy
Follow HxA on Facebook: / heterodoxacademy
For more about HxA: heterodoxacademy.org/
"The regressive left is an incubator for the alt right." This dude's got a way with words!
Not only is the content of what Pinker offers reliably intelligent and substantive, but his voice is aesthetically pleasing. I like just listening to him talk, whatever he is saying.
Totally agree. Not just his voice but his ability to choose precisely the right words (and right amount of words) to make it both easy and entertaining to understand what he's saying. He speaks as well as he writes, which is saying something, because his writing is exceptionally good.
totally agree ...i find mr pinker and sam harris have the perfect calm and relaxing voices to fall asleep to and absorb their content subliminally...these talks are such gold!
@@giantessmaria And I have to point out that his hair is blue, which proves the assertion I have been making that the guy is an alien. He has to be. Anyone this smart, and with blue hair, can't be human.
There is a 0% chance history looks back and concludes Pinker didn't know what he was talking about. If only the world had 100 more like him.
@freeskite: I bet Pinker would disagree with you. There is a 100% chance that history looks back and concludes Pinker was wrong (in the sense that knowledge is always incomplete) . . .
See your first respondent. Your comment is scientifically silly.
He did not say people would look back and say Pinker was never wrong, but that Pinker knew what he was talking about. It was a silly way to express this sentiment, but I ultimately agree with it. Pinker really does have a way with words and ideas that history will prove to appreciate.
Nassim Taleb doesn't agree with him
Pinker is already wrong.
Jesus the intro,
Been a huge fan of Pinkers for years, Haidt less time, but just as avidly, a real pleasure to see the fraternity. LOL! Makes the world seem better
That was a great talk. Thank you for sharing this post.
Daniel Kahleman taught my class in Princeton where I was transfer student for a couple of semesters from Cambridge University. He is a stellar teacher. And always listens to strident unlike many other teachers who just want students to shut up and listen what peqrls of wisdom they are giving. The second kind of behavior is more common in top universities than many may think.
Steve's speech is excellent, almost a must watch for everyone and especially college students and professors. In particular he gives appropriate and stern warnings about the effects, including backlash, of suppressing heterodox (right wing) speech on campuses.
The first thing I noticed among his demonstrated brilliance in thinking and analyzing thought is that he still maintains some flagrant biases himself. For example, he emphasized an enduring nature of politicians lying about the casus belli of wars, while he seems ignorant, speculative, and dogmatic about claims of lying us into recent wars.
He touches on two phenomena that I'm familiar with under different names. The first is Mood Affiliation where a person first adopts a mood or mode of thought, and then accepts all the disparate views commensurate with that mood. This could be described as a form of confirmation bias. Mood affiliation is the urgent need to challenge anything that goes against the adopted mood.
Second is the Abilene Paradox which describes how a group can reach a mutual decision that is actually less preferred by every individual than an alternative. While the AP refers to courses of action, it could conceivably be applied to beliefs as well.
Steve specifically mentions several institutions that have demonstrated an evolution that is strictly preferred to prior states, e.g. the legal system. Perhaps Steve has no first hand knowledge of our legal system, but in my experienced opinion it has become an arena of lies and a cemetery for logic because of its design by lawyers, for lawyers. It has also succumbed to the self-same orthodoxy and honor in victimhood that plagues universities, and for the same reason: orthodox leftists.
While he correctly associates modern capitalism with regulation and social safety nets, he appears to suggest that these necessarily go hand in hand. The inexorable movement toward these have come from a concerted effort to undermine capitalism and our Republic, not naturally. There is some merit to the idea that regulation is the result of a healthy cost benefit analysis putting prevention ahead of remedies after the fact. But this has also been a Trojan Horse for unbridled and grandiose interference in well functioning markets for the sake of orthodox leftist goals. As one example, the attempt to ban payday lenders is not the result of any rational weighing of costs and benefits. Research has clearly shown that payday lending, while very expensive, is much cheaper and accessible than alternatives for many people. The opposition to them derives from a visceral, ideological revulsion to capitalism, profit, and bypassing regulatory controls applied to the banking system.
If anything, Pinker's criticism of leftist orthodoxy is constrained by fear. You can easily observe him quiver and quake when he makes criticisms against them, albeit he is more courageous in speaking in general terms than contentious specific instances. I'm not criticizing his courage but rather pointing out his genuine fear.
He appears to believe that combating this is a matter of persuasion, and he succumbs to the same comfort of preaching to the choir that he talks about in various social situations. I applaud this reason, but the situation is far too advance to try to move continents by pleading with people to line up and push. We need heavy handed intervention to drive marxist orthodoxy out of universities, law, business, and other commanding heights. By this I dont mean eradication of ideas and thoughts, but a return to the fundamental principles of the constitution, justice, logic, and truth that leftist orthodoxy has destroyed over the past 6 decades. Universities didn't become bastions of leftist orthodoxy, replacing a previous conservative orthodoxy, merely by natural selection, a changing zeitgeist, or random chance. It was an invasion.
Those 'scientists' who work for tobacco companies have sold out and have become immune to reason discussed about the effects of smoking.
It is justifiable to spike a marxist with LSD until they see the evil in their moral relativistic and truth denying ways.
So, no discussion of other economic systems--just ours. Sounds rational.
Oh boy. There are a number of extremists on the left but Marxism seems to be the cause of every societal ill in your mind. They're your Boogeyman in the same way that the Jewish people were to the Germans. Anything else you want to lay on them? They're not building lasers in space are they?
Pinker> Chomsky.....by alot.
Pinker is definitely in my opinion the best intellectual, at least one of the best.....Never seen him "destroyed" or anything.
He's a better linguist too. I heard an interview of Chomsky about the universal grammar when I was seventeen, thought it was cool. I've studied many languages since then, now I have trouble figuring out what, if anything, about the variety of grammars around the world is "universal."
22:11 - Will be like social death. That's why I'm an ex-muslim atheist in a muslim majority country, because I am autistic and I am already dead socially, so I am not afraid to be different.
Good luck, people like you should be supported the world over, not just the Islamic leaders that claim to speak for you.
You are being brave! I am just down the hall from foolishness, but not dangerous foolishness, thank you for your willingness to think.
Perhaps you always instinctively know that abusing an autistic person for whatever reason would be seen as a major social No No....
Man, good for you! Just out of curiosity, are you from Pakistan?
Islam is social death by itself it murders all reason
Excellent presentation of concepts, as usual.
TY
Dr. Pinker !
I improve as a person everytime I hear you speak.
37:30 "acquired knowledge"
Seek out "The Five Minute University" by Father Guido Sarducci (Don Novello)
I love Pinker and I spend a lot of time thinking about ways to argue in the messy world of identity politics, but I’m still struck by his strategic inventions like “rationality inequality” at 35:19, which leverages public outrage at inequality to tacitly accept the idea of rationality itself
I appreciate the comments about the mission of the university. I've heard a professor (of computer science, no less) say, "My job is to develop young minds". Sounds nice on the surface, but the followup is, "... and I assume I have available to me any tools I deem necessary to develop them in the way I deem best". No, that's not true. His job was to provide expert instruction in a specific field of academic inquiry. The development of young minds (and those of other ages as well) is an effect of doing that.
I agree, parents have improperly delegated this type of responsibility to teachers. Teachers are to transmit skills to students, parents and communities are to develop youths.
Re: 19:30 he's channeling Curtis Yarvin here.
Another great presentation and event from pinker. He never ceases to deliver
I first heard that quite about academics from Milton Friedman. But he was alluding to an anecdote, if memory serves right Frank Knight.
3:39 premise: why we need universities to refine, teach, and promote objective truth and disinterested reason
3:56 objections: is this a hopeless aspiration, haven’t psychologists shown that humans are irrational, and aren’t we living in a post-truth era?
4:21 counter: we are not living in a post-truth era
4:38 counter: why humans are not irrational
52:35 Interview
Thank you for your contribution.
www.skeptic.com/reading_room/steven-pinker-on-why-we-are-not-living-in-a-post-truth-era
I have read books by both Jonathan Haidt and Steven Pinker, and I am smarter and happier for it!
Are you really smarter?
I have been following Pinker, Haidt, and many other highly intelligent intellectuals for years on youtube (it really does have some good content). I am happier to have watched many hundreds of hours of such talks and discussions. But I know I am not smarter. I'm the same 100 IQ person I've always been. I'm happier because I feel a little better informed, but mostly to know there are smart people who have integrity and influence on the world that, we can hope, keeps us going as a viable species--or least improves our chances.
Skipper on Gilligan's Island was played by an actor named Hale.
I couldn't remember his first name.
And now they just tried to cancel Steven Pinker.
Yes that brings Pinkers own argument that truth is important ...to the table...
along with anyone uttering reasonable opinions. cancelculture is the death of our civilization
This is the best group I have ever been associated with.
Enlightenment hagiography: Pinker with the Purple Halo!
haha didn't notice until you pointed it out. lol
Human beings also can appeal to one another through rhetoric and that's not the same thing as reasoning, so one can rhetorically persuade someone that human beings are irrational without appealing to reasoning such as satire and aphorism.
Cool talk
13:12 I do not understand what knot he is talking about. Can someone explain this example?
He's really is brilliant. No wonder so many in academia want him cancelled.
If Academia really wanted him 86d, he’d have been 86d.
Lmao always gotta bring up canceling!
Canceling is nothing new. Anyone who grew up in a culture with traditions knows this. Don't follow traditions, get ostracized. Religions and cultures still do this and yes, it is always worse at the extremes. I also believe that there is line that even Pinker would cross if the person were egregious enough.
"Lieing is a loaded word that should not be used lightly. Sharyl Attkisson has written in her book, SLANTED, about lieing in journalism.
26:02 techniques
There is a highly functional method for presenting both the talking head and the slides as they appear. It's a picture in picture method. Talking head at 1/5 size down in the corner and the slides underneath scaled to the whole frame. No reason not to use it. Please consider it for future talks.
There are two types of rationality that are relevant in listening to this conversation.
There is rationality predicated on an emotional capacity to consider meanings without hiding or changing anything.
And there is "rationality" predicated on the looking-good and enabling of a patriarchy in return for social status.
I can't decide if the guy talking to Pinker is Esai Morales or Javier Bardem.
Lol this guy looks like a slob. Why compare him.to Hollywood.people
I enjoy and am informed by Pinker, although I am sometimes puzzled by his (and others) condemnation of post-modernism.
How different is heterodoxy from 'skepticism of the meta-narrative'? What happens when heterodoxy becomes orthodoxy?
Should there always be a thoughtful opposition to whatever is critically fashionable or rationally acceptable?
I think they too often lump together post modernism with anti rationalism, empiricism and pro censorship. Sure, some nitwits who promote those concepts might have read a bunch of Foucault. But, anti rationalism etc have been around for way longer than post modernism and you can use some post modern ideas to combat them. The real enemies of reason are authoritians who wanna shut people up, in whatever form or under whatever label they come.
I'd assume it has to do with everything being socially constructed, leading to nihilism & narcissism. The official story (meta-narrative) may actually be the right story, even if it serves those in power.
"The water the we swim in" -> I kinda hope this is actually a shoutout to David Foster Wallace.
Ha halfway through I noticed his hair is just GLOWING blue :p lol
Steven Pinker is looking more and more like he "should just like to see his old ring one more time."
HAHAHA - I love you for this
@@limlaith Love you too, pal.
lord of the rings? bilbo !
YOOOO 😂😂😂😂
I think out age for university admission is wrong. People by the time they are 18 or 19 aren't mature enough to absorb to the best of their ability, in comparison to what they will be able able absorb in mid 20's to late 20's for example. But it's very hard to hard to anything about it. We don't want to gave more dependents in societies especially rich world, where people are already getting very old.
And also the reklated problem of parents taking care of quite old kids.
"It's hard to believe today, but environmentalism was once denounced as a right-wing cause, in which the gentry frivolously worried about habitats for duck-hunting and the views from their country estates rather than serious issues like racism, poverty, and Vietnam."
Human beings may be pragmatists but that doesn't mean that they're rational if rationality means they consciously reason and rely on truth to make judgments. Rationality also isn't necessarily the scientific method.
Pinker copiously credits the cognitive scientists he relies on. It would make sense to provide a link to his footnotes for further study.
References are in all his books
The structure is such It sounds like a university course. Like you have to take notes more and in the end y will be graded.
38:20 does fucking Genius here mean Skeptical?
Great talk, and great boots! I'm jealous, I wouldn't have guessed Pinker is a boots man.
46:20
Politifact is reasonable? Fact-checking? That never persuades anyone?
Heterodox univ held a conference and neglected to include a conservative speaker.
They added a couple at the last minute. They aren’t sincere.
Are we in a post truth era? No, not really, because we have never been in one. I love Steven Pinker and have read most of his works but I think his arguments here do somewhat fail. The fact that some can be given to a stronger respect for “truth” is not a push back on the average person. This seems to be a pendulum swing. And the nonsense going on within the social sciences these days is not only alarming but going through a phase of being disinterested in and immune to truth. Nonetheless, I still agree with much of Pinker’s assessment in moving forward. But capitalism has confused the conversation between academics and the general public. Climate science, for example, is not really debatable, and yet it is. Scientists speaking on behalf of the tobacco industry is but one example of how academia fails to police itself. And it is not just politicians who lie and distort the truth, voters do too. Most party members think the bulk of lying is always on the other side of the aisle.
The talk gets much better as it goes along.
Louis leibenberg
wait 300k to go to Harvard? that is insane
Also, truth is not necessarily fact. Propositions have true or false values and facts either exist or are likely to exist or do not or are unlikely to exist.
Even facts can change.
@@Vlasko60 Absolutely, it's not if facts change but when and why where truth is consistent and unchanging.
37:07
"The reality being that there is no such thing as a developed capitalist country without extensive regulation and a social safety net".
You seem to say 2 things. First you said just noticing differences is not racist. And then you said believing races differe fundamentally in so far one can be called superior is racist. I do note differences and I think some part of differences is fundamental. But the gap will close if given equal opportunities, which we certainly don't have mostly because of historical disadvantages and a sma bit due to present prejudices. Does that make me Racist? Or if such fundamental differences exist or or is not something I am arguing here.
What I an saying as long as reasonable doubts remain people would be racist. People see around themselves and make judgements. Most people don't just say they are not racist just because it's a taboo to say so.
That's why the incredible rise of alt right in what seems a blink of an eye, the unthinkable election of Trump, to what many reasonably believe was unthinkable.
Now don't want to argue Trump was good or bad. Because I am neutral on him. He isn't stupid but is crass. Some of his ideas were refreshing because he doesn't follow the norms. But he isn't most articulate plus many of his mannerism and way of putting things are abhorrent.
".... is something I am.NOT arguing here " *
Either the Heckler's Veto is defeated and not allowed to stand,... or Civilization itself (Western or otherwise) must fall,... period!! To equate honestly expressing one's opinion with already being physically violent towards others is to render any Civilization infeasible by definition even. But tolerance does not have to be extended to those who call for violence against you. But who decides for each of us what is a violent act and what is a legitimate involuntary social duty to others? Does truth flow only from authority or does authority flow only from truth. Is respect rooted in admiration or in fear,... or must it be both?
*_Nobody has the right to not be offended._*
~ Salman Rushdie
*_In a free society, standards of public morality can be measured only by whether physical coercion ~ violence against persons or property ~ occurs. There is no right not to be offended by words, actions or symbols._*
~ Richard E. Sincere, Jr.
*_Justice will only exist where those not effected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignation as those offended._*
~ Plato
*_As long as we can counter intolerant philosophies by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them, if necessary even by force. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as should consider incitement to murder, or kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal._*
~ Karl Popper, 1945
Mental and emotional coercion is how many religions acquire followers without any physical threat, except going to Hell. The intolerant often claim to be the tolerant ones, demonizing the truly tolerant. This is how the Republican party works, on virtually every issue.
@@Vlasko60 You had me up until the last sentence. The only _woke_ folks I know of that promote racism in the name of anti-racism are the Democrats.
*_It is above all in the present democratic age that the true friends of liberty and human grandeur must remain constantly vigilant and ready to prevent the social power from lightly sacrificing the particular rights of a few individuals to the general execution of its designs. In such times there is no citizen so obscure that it is not very dangerous to allow him to be oppressed, and there are no individual rights so unimportant that they can be sacrificed to arbitrariness with impunity._*
~ Alexis de Tocqueville
*_Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down._*
~ Frederick Douglass
*_We won't organize any black man to be a Democrat or a Republican because both of them have sold us out. Both of them have sold us out; both parties have sold us out. Both parties are racist, and the Democratic Party is more racist than the Republican Party._*
~ Malcolm X
*_The main thing that every political campaign in the United States demonstrates is that the politicians of all parties, despite their superficial enmities, are really members of one great brotherhood. Their principal, and indeed their sole, object is to collar public office, with all the privileges and profits that go therewith. They achieve this collaring by buying votes with other people's money._*
~ H.L. Mencken
*_The terrorists don't hate America because of its freedoms. The Republicans and Democrats hate America because of its freedom. The terrorists hate America because of the Republicans and Democrats._*
~ John Shuey
*_There exists no more democratic institution than the market._*
~ Joseph A. Schumpeter
*_Anybody can become angry -- that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way -- that is not within everybody's power and is not easy._*
~ Aristotle
*_Power don't come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big, and gettin' the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain't true, you've got 'em by the balls._*
~ Senator Roark: *Sin City*
*_I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty, or civilization, or both._*
~ Thomas Babington Macaulay
*_A democratic despotism is like a theocracy: it assumes its own correctness._*
~ Walter Bagehot
*_This is one of the paradoxes of the democratic movement = that it loves a crowd and fears the individuals who compose it = that the religion of humanity should have no faith in human beings._*
~ Walter Lippmann
*_The upstanding, church-going, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen who votes Democratic or Republican is far more despicable, and a bigger threat to humanity, than the most promiscuous, lazy, drug-snorting hippie. Why? Because the hippie is willing to let others be free, and the voter is not._*
~ Larken Rose
@@davidhunt7427 Everyone has prejudice, but where are the white supremacist liberals groups? All the white supremacist groups I can find are conservative....... and there are many.
@@Vlasko60 I would have told you but every reply I post has been deleted so I give up!
@@Vlasko60 th-cam.com/video/IF8quaC53ic/w-d-xo.html *Carol Swain:* _I have reached the conclusion that progressives XXXX blacks._
Crime rate is increasing again in America. Violent crime is getting back to the bad days of 80's and early 90's. Although crimes like robbing is still historically low. That's probably because robberies are easier to track, a point that reinforces professor Pinker argument
No! The expertise matters, the heterodoxy DOESNT MATTER
What we need IS A RESPUBLIC
Pinker is a scholar I trust, but not absolutely. That is exactly how I suspect he would like it to be, probably ;)
I like Steven Pinker. He is mischaracterized by people who don't know how to listen. But the idea that a political moderate is "heterodox" is patently absurd. Which he himself seems to consider when he mentions how he's always surprised when people find things he says "controversial." He's pretty milquetoast in reality - hardly heterodox.
Pinker looks like the german TV presenter Thomas Gottschalk.
Is he jew too?
Contrary to what Pinker says, I think the case can be made that irrationality has increased in society. It has to do with the complexity of issues that people have to address: the complexity is increasing faster than people's capacity to handle it.
Whereas before, people could have a set of (comparatively) simple and rational attitudes that worked reasonably well . . . today that same set doesn't work as well at all. There are two consequences: (1) trying to use the old set (eg fundamentalist religion) becomes irrational . . . (2) poor and inadequate use of new sets (eg deconstructionism) is irrational. That's a lot of increased irrationality . . .
He is arguing that what many people define as irrational is more rational than it appears. Irrationality is often used as a substitute for "you don't share the set of unquestionable facts I have nor my critical thinking skills." Charges of irrationality in others are often just cheerleading for yourself. The hypothesis of irrationality must be proven, not merely asserted.
He also describe perfectly how apparent irrationality in groups belies individual rationality when group pressures are removed. Thus the expression of irrational ideas is a social dynamic, not a failing of human thought. Even when facts and logic are suppressed, there is almost always a completely rational objective of maintaining or gaining advantage from it that itself may be optimal for a group. So what if God doesn't exist and religion is mysticism if the belief in God has beneficial effects for society and individuals. Seeking a new social order is merely a competing mysticism that favors some people more than others, I.e. changing the initial endowments.
Increased complexity in the environment doesn't mean society has gotten more irrational, it just means it's getting harder to tell how rational people really are because there are multiple levels of rationality. I prefer to be optimistic, I think people continue to get more rational despite the headlines.
well my sister is more smart with the numbers and i can do writing.. maybe we can be one uni student combo.
That might be a thing one day.
Lol. Interesting idea . But how will you get employment later in future? I suggest you find a romantic partner to complement you like that
Otherwise you will both make each other's better half jealous
Stop advocatng it and start supplying it.
Quite a rude and abrupt ending!
If you think that. you probably didn't take in what both Haidt and Pinker had to say.
I agree. He interrupted while Steven was talking. Other than that, I thought he was pretty good. Never long enough though.
I'm confused: climate change is a political position, not a scientific fact?
that hair
The most googled term in Britain after Brexit was, "What is Brexit?" The second most googled term was "What is the EU?"
Perhaps these people should have been asked to articulate their opinion on the EU before the referendum.
Google is mostly used by people outside the UK
Also ask people what Is capitalism, and what's socialism. Perhaps ask that in th heigth of Cold War? My point is that referendums aren't the most rational way to for, policies.
Well, given all the debates about the EU in the last 3 years, double checking what Brexit means, debates about the tone of debates about the EU, meticulous attention paid to all parts of Brexit - and then Boris Johnsons massive mandate for his Brexit deal, I think we know which way the UK wants to go. The path of Liberty, freedom and democracy. Despite the EU bureaucrats in the UK pulling every single lever of power they had to frustrate and subvert democracy. The electorate are sovereign. And they have proven it again with the biggest mandate in a generation to any leader to get Brexit done.
You're assuming that those Google searches were from those directly affected and voting. I'd venture to say that millions of Americans of all stripes suddenly became interested in and developed fervent views about Brexit when their propaganda masters told them it was important. Yet the searches themselves could represent skepticism about the information and views they were being fed, or they were searching for confirming evidence to use in their dinner party debates.
@@robmiller7201 The most Googled terms *in Britain,* specifically. Google knows that shit.
Almost every example he gave of people becoming more rational either proves the opposite or can and has been used to bypass rationality not reinforce it.
25:52 was useful: "Calling On someone to articulate their position" for example Obamacare or NAFTA, which could leave opinionated people dumbstuck.
35:19, 51:43
The exoteric is easier to understand than the esoteric. Mr. Pinker is not a believer in the esoteric. Yet where do all the great discoveries come from other than the esoteric. It all starts in the mind. Rationality alone can be a version of Frankenstein. How about a balance between reason and feeling. Denying the intelligence of our emotional nature is no longer pertinent. The promotion of reason alone is unbalanced.
I wonder what is the origin of the notion that the mission of a university is to promote truth and rationality?
It certainly isn't that with religious universities, but some do try to balance the dogma with secular ideals.
Low hanging fruit and the pied piper trick is not addressing the normal reasonable manufacturing consent lies.
24:00 it's funny that he's actually describing climate alarmists here while thinking they're the ones who base their views on evidence. Pinker knows 1/100th the physics Freeman Dyson did and yet, throws in with climate alarmists because it's the thing to do in academia.
Dyson, being a physicist who has spent his career studying cosmology, black holes and the, like surely does not necessarily know any more about climate change than Pinker. All physicists do not know all physics - especially not these days!
I am quite sure "literally murdered" used in the introductory speech had Pinker a prick in his heart. Americans who use "literally" figuratively.🤣🤣🤣🤣
He lost me at Snopes and Wikipedia as sources of truth.
Is Steven taking psychedelics? "A huge danger is making it seem as if the intolerance and repression is coming only from the right wing........." It is purely Left wing. Steve is in an Alt-Left universe. But I think him for his contributions.
Craig Castanet, D.C. Ehm at around minute 38 he is adressing the left, do you just hear what you like or do you listen to the speech completely?
capitalism is a war. Not a ballet.
I have read all of Steven Pinker‘s books and have admired him greatly. But his opening arguments in this particular talk are beyond absurd and far from being logical.
rationality, reason, and objective truth are three different things. i hear them conflated constantly by atheist reductionists...
you can have a reason for anything. fundamentalists are reasonable, because they can defend their arguments.
rationality is syllogistic extrapolations meant to defend a reason. rationality is always based off of an axiom, it can't exist without belief in an axiomatic structure which is taken on faith. fundamentalists, therefore, are rational if you take their axioms to be self evident.
objective truth is fundamentally unknowable and unexpressable in its final form, but when a theory is true, the results are self evident, observed, and anticipated. a true prediction is a prediction which is observed to come to fruitition.
Not THAT reason. He's not talking about having a 'reason' for something, or even being reasonable in the social sense. He's talking about applying logic by drawing conclusions from observations and such. This is Reason - which is another word for rationality.
@@dennisryan5586 the reason that you are talking about is exactly the reason i am talking about.
when people have a reason to believe something, they usually have at least a couple of logical statements that they pull out to defend it, when pressured.
this doesn't mean that their reason is truth. it just means they have a couple of supporting pieces of correlating evidence. religious people have a couple of pieces of correlating evidence that they believe to be convincing.
@@notloki3377 You're still not getting it. Reason as a logical philosophy, not as a justification or cause.
Reason is the analytic faculty of the human mind that maintains objectivity unto inspecting and organizing perceptions.
Reason may also refer to:
1) Rationality, the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason
2) Reason (argument), a factor which justifies or explains
3) The cause of some thing
It's the #1 up there that Pinker is talking about, not 2 or 3. But here's another definition:
Rationality is the quality or state of being rational - that is, being based on or agreeable to Reason.
For instance, when someone mentions the Age of Reason, they aren't referring to a time when people were explaining how or why something is, nor are they referring to a time when people provided causal evidence for things. They are referring to a time when rationality and reason finally became more prominent and important than superstition and/or religion. It's not just about providing some kind of 'evidence' for something, that's just simple debate. Rather, it's about a state of mind that seeks to describe natural phenomena based on science rather than faith.
Reason is diametrically opposed to religion.
@@dennisryan5586 okay so you seem to think logic and reason are the same thing. this is fine, i can ride with that definition. assuming logic is a probabilistic equation?
i see two issues with that. one, just because something seems probable based on a certain amount of available evidence, does not mean that it's true. you also have to specify your inclusion and exclusion criteria for the evidence you incorporate into your equation.
i would say that religious people are also employing logic in their analysis of reality, you simply have decided to exclude their evidence based on not having shared personal experience.
science is also not logic, science is a process of determining the qualities of the natural world through observation and analysis of evidence. science cannot exist in the abstract, whereas logic can. and the science you employ and therefore the logic you use to justify it must come from your personal experiences, unless you trust other people more than yourself.
most religious people, including myself, have had some experience which tilts the logical equation over in the favor of the immaterial, the moral, the godly. if someone has never had such an experience, i can see why they would not be convinced. thankfully, convincing you is not my job.
@@notloki3377 Well I would say I think rationality and reason are very similar, logic is kind of its own thing.
When you say 'trusting other people's experience', I'm not sure what you mean there. If lots of other people have come to a certain conclusion using the scientific method, then I am inclined to agree with that conclusion. If lots of other people have come to a certain conclusion using only their own faith, beliefs, or 'immaterial' experience, then I am not inclined to agree with them. Evidence-based conclusions based on observations and repetitive experiments always trump any 'shared' experience.
Just because a lot of people agree to having the same immaterial or supernatural experience, does not then mean what they experienced is a true thing. I mean, centuries ago people would see an eclipse and most would think god's wrath was surely upon them. Just because they were all frightened in the same way doesn't make their conclusion about the eclipse valid.
He could have spent more time on the culture of victimhood.
Add the modern trend that I can only describe as the Stockholm Effect and another related legacy that could be described as Slave Mentality.
Pinker makes me feel so imbecilic, given his IQ, his academic achievement and a whole slew of other pedantic ways. But I caught him making a minor grammatical blunder, thus boosting my ego by a few bars, if only for a moment: He used the word "alternatives." No such word exists. Alternative is the correct usage. Either one proposition exists or another. The "another" is the alternative. There can be only one alternative.
Another way to express what he meant could have been, say, "options" or "other choices" or any number of other ways.
He's just defending his plate. He committed to his donors a long time ago. Not buying it Steve.
55:24 Sexism is nature based and very justififable.
Shame that fact checkers have turned out to be so partisan and skewed.
You statement is flawed. Thanks
Lol that Hilary Clinton sex ring thing … lol ain’t far off. As we saw bill Clinton’s name on that Epstein flight list …
*"Politicians have always lied", "People have always spread non-truths". Though those statements may be true, Pinker flatly ignores the scale of what is happening today, which has never been seen before in this country.*
I'm pretty sure you have no sense of the scale or scope to make such a boldface claim. The internet has certainly increased access to information as well as decreased the costs of expressing thoughts. But as Pinker stated based on research, fake news is infinitesimal in its scale and scope and virtually ineffective in actually changing anyone's mind in binary choices.
An understandable conclusion after more than 4 years of Donald and his sheeple lying continuously. I don't know about the scale, but I think the speed at which lies get around is definitely much faster, and lies always travel faster than truth.
@@robmiller7201 Hahaha. Have you been around for the last five years? Did you see the Capitol riots? The anti-vaxxers? Qanon? The people who STILL believe the election was stolen? All of these things were bred via fake news, on a scale that was never achieved before.
You underestimate people stupidity and selfishness.
@@firstal3799 How so? Be specific.
Pinker's guts imply the common, extant cowardice.
What do you mean?
"We all agree, racism is bad, and sexism and so on." Really? Then why do so many men still think it's okay for women to have fewer rights? We do not all agree.
We don't all agree racism is bad. I am a very fair person and I treat people as individuals. I am also of a generous heart and that people kindly. Buy I am also racist in so far I see group differences in terms of ethnicity
@@firstal3799 Noticing differences is not racist, just as noticing differences between males and females is not sexist.
If the definitions apply to you, then yes, you are racist.
Racism:
1. : a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2. : the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
"we don't have faith in reason, we use reason". Lol, as if any human being would use any tool without having at least enough faith in the tool that it could possibly work.
Reason is a tool, and tools that are used by human beings are used based on the faith of that human being in the possibility of that tool being effective enough to achieve the goal it is being used for, if there was no faith in the tool possibly being effective enough, the tool wouldn't be used.
He may be a language professor, but here he seems to buy into the new atheists dogma of faith having nothing to do with trust or confidence. Ah well, even the best of us are prone to making mistakes, unless of course it's just caused by the differences between American English and UK English.
If I take the first definitions in two prominent dictionaries there seems to be somewhat of a discrepancy:
Merriam Webster: "allegiance to duty or a person: loyalty"
oxford dictionary: "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something."
Though there is a relation connecting 'loyalty' to 'trust' or 'confidence' to some degree, those words do not have the exact same meaning.
(note that in general I'm applying the oxford definition of the word 'faith')
Words have multiple definitions, in case you never noticed. The word is used **very** commonly in a religious context, not just trusting as way a conveying confidence. Hundreds of millions of people use the word “faith” in their justification for a belief or set of beliefs.
It is not only a synonym of “trust” and there is no “new atheist dogma” regarding the word faith, just a common understanding of how people commonly use the word in modern English. Your entire comment here read to me as pure drivel.
@@Airehcaz
"Hundreds of millions of people use the word “faith” in their justification for a belief or set of beliefs."
And you claim they do this without having any confidence or trust in or loyalty towards their set of beliefs at all? I'd urge you to think again and take a bit more time doing so.
Look if you disagree with what I stated, fine. Present your argument and we can have a rational discussion about it. Just claiming my statements to be nonsense without providing an argument for making this claim is what is actual nonsense. I already conceded that the word can be used differently, I even pointed out different definitions of the word by two different dictionaries. So unless you are arguing that American English is the only true English, you are not making sense. If you are actually arguing that American English is the only true English, you are arguing a no true Scotsman fallacy.
There is no common understanding in English worldwide, the fact that two dictionaries define words differently already points that out. There are in fact significant differences between US English and UK English. The common you may be referring to could be common in the village or state you live in, but not common around the world. TH-cam is globally accessible. So don't read my comments as if they are just about how English is being used in the town you happen to live in.
I have faith scientific thinking is the best approach to find objective truth.
All the things I believe to be true- that I haven’t studied myself requires faith. I’ve never seen a virus. I think they exist. That’s faith.
@@-astrangerontheinternet6687
Alas the scientific method takes too much time compared to the lifespan of most human beings, hence most people settle for subjective truth and believes instead most of the time. Up until the Wright brothers, whether someone believed human beings could invent devices allowing us to fly or whether someone believed the opposite or were agnostic about the question was hardly relevant, it's only after the invention of functioning flying devices that the believe became relevant.
Not that I disagree, on the contrary, I'm merely elaborating on the problem.
@@Airehcaz
Half a year and still no substantiating for your claim? I take it your objection was pure drivel then.
This whole thing is confirmation bias for me tho.
Nobody seems to mention Epstein so far
*Technology is making people stupider, and decreasing their need to think critically. Anyone who's been on the internet since the late 90's has watched it happen.*
Maybe just people like you
@@FreedomFROMReligionID Nope. I'm assuming you're too young to know what I'm talking about.
Technology is just a tool, it makes ignorant people more ignorant and educated people more educated (generally).
@@nathangale7702 Perhaps, but the number of truly educated people is getting smaller and smaller, while the ignorance is increasing. It's really just making the rich richer, exponentially faster than the poor, and literally splitting society in two.
@@andybaldman What do you mean by "truly educated?" I don't think the data really supports that assertion.
Pinker goes on and on and on talking about the need for freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas, seemingly congratulating himself for his tolerance and open mindedness, on issues which have been obvious to 99.9% of all Americans for the past couple of centuries. The only place these issues have been questioned are in extreme religious cults, and in tiny enclaves in higher ed. It's not even true in any mainstream religious community, or flat earth societies, or whatever.
Pinker sounds like someone who's been hiding in a bunker since 1952 and is trying to convince the other people in the bunker that they need to open the hatch to see whether the world really was destroyed.
All hail to sexism! 🙂
It's totally inevitable, it's natural.
We are different .
Yes, I agree we are different, but how does that make sexism any more rational of an idea. It's no different from the many cognitive bias's to which we are predisposed. Abject poverty, is a humans default status with regard to nature, but we still attempt to beat it down. Same principle for Sexism, right? Default running programs that we must upgrade?
@@ptbuse21 no, not the same. Men and women dance around each other constantly. There is banter going on and it's perfectly sane and jolly. People who get upset about that, should go see a Therapist and Not annoy the Rest of the world with it. If a certain bias does not apply to you, well, hey, that's great and you can feel special about yourself- yet you're still the exception to the rule, that's the point.
Pinker has a lot to learn the world but his pro Clinton and leftist politics is not it
@@felixmidas3245 both learn and teach... as they go together
@@felixmidas3245 not native speaking american ... yes it was a mistake ... I learn american not teach it 🥶
@@felixmidas3245 thank you... thought you were a member of the canceling bunch
@@felixmidas3245 every sane creature are against the canceling mob... and pro free speach and the constitution
Now they have to look into the election and throw Biden regime back into his hunter basement
@@felixmidas3245 not true... Biden cannot just say things
This will crusch USA if the democrats try to use their corrupt power and enforce this via two tired justice
I certainly could have enjoyed this but pinkerton showed his lack of complexity in his need to utter political caustic remarks, and I lost respect. Arrogant people are simpletons.
I tend to agree with Pinker on most subjects, but his views on “Political Correctness” are a little overblown. Like a lot of other subjects he talks about, people think the problem is much worse than it really is. I’ve seen polls that show that most people think it’s a growing issue, but no real numbers on actual occurrences; just anecdotes. Even data that shows the numbers of people who hold beliefs that are out of the mainstream, show that this occurs much more on the right than the left.
The so-called crisis of political correctness IS way overblown. It basically only exists online. IRL, I know a few older guys who complain about 'not being able to say this or that anymore' or 'transgender rights x and y', but that's as far as it goes, talk. Nobody actually *does* anything IRL to bravely fight back against the tyranny of PC culture or whatever, not at the voting booth, not anywhere, because it just doesn't actually impact people's lives that much.
It becomes a big issue once you look at it from the University standpoint. Universities used to be an innovative place for ideas and discussions. Now, universities have PC filters that stop the discussion of ideas. Pinker is a professor so he notices it everyday.
@@squamish4244 Why do you think the political right is growing everywhere? It's because many ideas have become taboo. The real problem with PC is that the left almost completely dominates the culture. The right calls this PC. Example. Here in the Netherlands there's been a survey among teachers. Only 10% leans right, similar is centrist, and the rest leans left. It's worse in academia. It's similar in the media (except some online outlets). In real life the cultures more and more live separately. More and more people don't have friends of the opposite isle.
Another problem is the attitude of leftist people. Conservatives generally think that leftists are wrong. Leftists are convinced that conservatives are bad people. Yes this is most prominent online, but it is invading society. The fact that you don't see it just means you are part of the problem.
Gabriel So why doesn’t he offer any real data? All I hear are anecdotes; no hard data about people who are being persecuted by PC culture, or how pervasive it is.
Ron Arts I live in a very conservative state. Conservatives here literally believe that liberals are evil on a supernatural level. They actually believe that liberals are in league with Satan. They start screaming that they’re being persecuted if someone disagrees with them, or when they aren’t allowed to use government institutions to advance their religious agenda. And how many liberals do you think there are in the military or on Wall Street? There may be liberal enclaves, but there are powerful conservative ones as well.
He is so overrated
What a bunch of academic, non-productive hoopla…..