Frans de Waal | Learning from Primates about ourselves: From Gender to Social Hierarchies
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- Sign up through www.wren.co/st... to make a difference in the climate crisis, and Wren will plant 10 extra trees in your name!
Subscribe to exclusive bonus content at lawrencekrauss...
Frans de Waal is not only Lawrence's favorite primatologist, he is one of his favorite scientist-communicators. His books on primates, particularly on Bonobos and Chimpanzees-from politics to child-rearing and even culture-reveal a tremendous amount about our closest genetic relatives, and hence about ourselves. His newest book, Different: Gender Through the Eyes of a Primatologist, tackles a particularly hot topic at the current time, but as is typical of his books, this one is both entertaining, and touching, and packed with data rather than anecdotes. Lawrence was very happy to sit down with Frans again to talk broadly about the motivations for his career choice, as well as his many years of experience in the field. While this conversation focused on his new book, the discussion ranged far more broadly over the importance of primatology as a new and useful window on humans.
Thank you for great conversation! I've waited next but
RIP Frans 😢
I love the fact that Lawrence really understood the books. For everyone wondering, "Chimpansee Politics" really is one of the best books period.
It really gave me a new view on the world.
Thank you for this great conversation, Lawrence. It would be interesting to see you interview Stanford University Neuroscientist and Primatologist Robert Sapolsky.
Absolutely. I admire his work. Didn't he say he only once witnessed a rape among baboons? Not sure if he just mostly studied the males, though.
Yes, please make a podcast with Robert Sapolsky, it's a must I believe as we should learn alot.
Yes I love Sapolsky! That would an amazing conversation
Hell yeah they had such a conversation indeed
Thank you for this conversation. I've assigned Chimpanzee Politics in my biopolitics class for years.
Thank you for this conversation, and for the
Memories of great science and a great scientist.
Frans de Waal is one of the persons I do admire a lot. He is a special person
Thank you both Frans and Lawrence, this was a really interesting conversation, the fact that you make the time and energy to facilitate these discussions is very much appreciated. Having all of these intelligent individuals willing to spend time with you, actually says a lot about you Lawrence. Keep at it.
So grateful for being able to join all your discussions and learn new things all the time! Thank you for making such a huge difference in my life!
We need a way of making education, of this quality, free for all that want it. Thank you, gentlemen, for a fascinating discussion.
Amazing interview! It was a great pleasure to watch the whole video.
Thank you for this discussion. de Waal is one of my heroes.
Wonderful stuff. Maybe could have let de Waal speak a bit more but entirely understandable that Krauss couldn't stop expressing enthusiasm for everything de Waal popped into his nogin!
Came here for this take. Usually it's in the first 3 or 4 comments but this is a bit further down. I just started it and am wondering if I'm eventually going to be screaming at my phone for Krauss to shut up and let the man talk as I almost always do with his interviews.
All the respect to great teachers. Thank you very much to both of you. Great interview.
Thank you both for this wonderful discussion.
This video imo is on par with the Andrew Knoll convo .. absolutely brillant .. both Top 2, Frans de Waal and Andrew Knoll .. Thank You Lawrence
thank you so much for this enlightening conversation!
Great, Thank you for this conversation.
1:11:10 The term gender wasn't invented in 1955, it has existed for hundreds of years and was originally called genus in latin. However, it was limited in use until the mid 20th century and the term sex started to become erotic and so essentially people didn't wanna bring up sex in the conversion on gender, so everyone sort of just started using that term instead.
Isn't that basically the best way to learn about people generally and socially? Watch what they do, rather than listen to what they say? People tell you what they want you to think (about themselves, about the world), but they DO what correlates to what they really think and who they really are. If you watch people in this way, you notice that what they say often has nothing to do with who they really are. Their words ONLY give you an understanding of what they THINK they are and what they want everyone else to think they are. The disconnect between the two is often quite striking, and that disconnect tells you an awful lot about someone, often much more than their actual words tell you.
@P He True. But, I generally try not to judge people as such, because you can never really be sure of people's motives for doing what they do (you'd need a full history, and even then...). I look for interesting differences between people, rather than judging. If I do judge people, it's generally on how they treat other people more than anything else. If it's used to judge people, well...I just don't think judging people is appropriate, unless you have a very good reason to need to do so.
I live in a very different culture to my own, where I don't speak the language well. I spend a lot of time watching people and how they behave. If you watch people very carefully, it's amazing what you notice that other people don't. I teach English, and I actually notice things about the kids I teach sometimes that their native teachers don't. I know this because I point out problems that they hadn't noticed - some of which makes quite a difference for the child. It's quite an amazingly accurate measure, if you're doing it without judgement.
Great talk. Thank you so much. I learned a lot of things that I never thought I needed to learn but certainly I did need them
I was thoroughly intrigued by the topic. But Mr. Krauss' machismo and biased questions became unsavory very quick. Maybe it's because physics is "so hard", then competition in those majors women prefer is not real competition. Also, I find it clear how the expert, in this case Mr. de Wall speaks openly and without biases, whereas Mr. Krauss constantly is trying to bring forward some type of man plight (specially in physics).
This video is awesome. Just found this one and love it! Thanks for making these videos to share with others. 😊❤️ From Australia 🇦🇺
I love Frans de Waal! He also changed my view of human and animal nature. His studies on altruism have changed the world of biology. Love this conversation
Simply put: AMAZING!!! 💯
I really like Lawrence. I really like his guests. I'm really interested in the topic. But the self-centered interview style is unbearable.
thanks, great discussion! have go read some books by Dr De Waal now
It is great to be alive and wonder
Brilliant conversation👍
O Love bis work it helped me understand The concept of arquetype of Carl Jung.
It's about the fibrous roots and expiration.
Yet seasons change all the same.
Sentience is supposedly the ability to recognize self and ones surroundings. Consciousness is recognition of oneself and surroundings. It appears every mammal, bird, amphibian and reptile and likely many other Orders are conscious. Claims about behaviors and action being instinctual have been shown false in recent years. Behaviors are generally learned. Otters wouldn't play if they were not self-aware or lacked emotions. Elephants, cattle, horses, dogs, pigs and others would not cry when abused if they had no emotion or sense of suffering. Dolphins, dogs and others would not risk their lives to save other species if not self-aware and empathic. Bears and lions would not pace in zoos, nor would countless species enter depression when in captivity if they were not self-aware or lacked emotions.
Does anyone know...in human society, when men fight, they tend to gang up on one person...does that happen in primates? Or is it a recent societal trend?
another great conversation, let yer guests talk though, eh.
20:50 is about Michael Gazzaniga's discovery of the "Interpreter" in our brains, after studying split brain patients for 20 years. Fascinating stuff! Indeed, self reporting is the weakest data collection approach for understanding human decision making and behavior.
What is the video/experiment title that Lawrence mentions at 2:28:00 please?
Would be great to see Lawrence have a talk with Jared Diamond, the renowned anthropologist and author of Guns, Germs and Steel, although Jared is up there in years and I'm not sure how he's doing these days.
Regarding consciousness, it isn't helpful to have a restrictive definition. Consciousness is a spectrum across all lifeforms that are capable of experience. So trees, plankton, lizards, dogs and humans are all conscious but in dramatically different ways. Regarding ethics and morality, in all cultures and species, these are best viewed in relation to suffering. Actions that decrease suffering are moral and ethical, actions which increase suffering are not. There is no need to make more complex distinctions.
direct from São Paulo, Brazil: I am a huge fan of you both! Frans, your work is so relevant!
I have a question: is individualism on steroids ruining our capacity for progress?
If we bring biology into gender studies then the current trendy philosophy would crumble because it insists that there are no differences, hence the main reason for why it’s not being discussed by the masses. Facts are unfortunately going against theories of the current ideology.
Even we didn't have the level of consciousness we do now until language was formed. Before then, how much more consciousness could we have had over dogs? We communicated in the hunt, social hierarchy, etc., but dogs do that too. I know one of my dogs gets jealous when I pet the other, and one dreams he's playing because he woofs & runs in his sleep. But when I pet one and not the other, the jealous guy does anything he can to get between us, including sitting on the other guy's face. If that's not a me, me, me attitude, I don't know what is. I swear I can hear him thinking "F that guy, pet me!"
So was the scientist they were referring to Sapolski? If so what’s the rub?
Would be odd, Sapolsky has expressed great admiration for De Waal numerous times
1:42:42 The Fang of Damocles
@1:43:44 they are referring to the London Zoo Massacre at Monkey Hill debacle and Solly Zuckerman's very bad science. His wikipedia page is woefully lacking a 'Criticism' link and his career is portrayed there as long and very prestigious. It needs editing, to say the least.
Great interview.
Thanks for the grab, grab work just keep it down up there ah,...p.s. love ya dress 👗
awesome
I tried sampling various place throughout the vid. Almost every time it was just Lawrence talking, talking. Sigh.
What if I’ve never felt that way as a girl? Never cared about dolls and babies… how can I interpret that?
Humans are incredibly diverse. There are plenty of outliers.
Maybe you don't need to interpret that? You just don't care for dolls and babies. Your interests and passions lie elsewhere. Follow those - forget the dolls and babies. You can interpret later on, looking back.
Wise! Thanks
Terrible interviewer, allow the guest to speak, the interview is less about you but the guest and trying to get as much information from him as possible.
I call a person a woman or man dependant on their xx or xy chromosomes as that's biologically correct. Anything else is wrong.
Childness is sad
Laurence, I love you but you talk too much.
Thanks for your comment, I thought I was the only one who felt this way.
I think he is just trying to give significant context to a set of questions he has in mind while trying not to loose his broad audience
Ok go read a book then
@@KRBTCrypto I did!
Cold fusion has been achieved but, unfortunately, that technology has been destroyed because the head of the project used the wrong pronoun back in 2010.
I agree that scientists should write books - but they (including Krauss) should either learn how to write first, or have really good editors.
[THE UNIVERSE, WHAT IT IS & HOW IT WAS CREATED]
1. The Universe Is Infinite.
2. It Was Imagined By Someone Other than Us, The Creator, Yet, To Us, It Is 100% Real.
3. It Was Created, Imagined, From Nothing.
[PREMISES]
1. Things that don't make sense can't be comprehended. Example: we can't comprehend creating a river from a water contained in a bottle of water.
2. There are things that don't make sense, yet they can be imagined. Example: we can imagine water flows, endlessly, from a bottle of water, creating a river.
3. There are things that don't make sense and can't be imagined. Example: we can't imagine a mountain in its full size inside a keyhole.
4. There are two means to prove that either the universe is finite or that it is infinite: via comprehending or imagining.
5. It is imagination, only, if we imagined it.
[RHETORICAL QUESTIONS FOR KNOWN ANSWERS]
1. Do we can comprehend that the universe is finite? No. (The dilemma of how thick or what is beyond the borders prevents it.)
2. Do we can imagine that the universe is finite? No. (The same dilemma of how thick or what is beyond the borders would prevent it.)
3. Do we can comprehend that the universe is infinite? No, we never comprehended the concept of infinity, though we use it in our Math equations.
4. Do we can imagine that the universe is infinite? Yes. (All it needed is to ignore the presence of the borders. The universe can be imagined to extend endlessly, like the water in the bottle of water can be imagined flowing out endlessly.)
[CONCLUSION]
1. The universe can't be but infinite.
2. Since that imagination is the only mean through which we can recognize the universe, then the universe is the result of someone's imagination.
3. Since we don't imagine it, it is, then, real to us.
4. Since we don't imagine it, it is someone's else imagination, the creator.
5. Since imagination has no mass, has no wavelength (not energy,) has no location, the universe, then, can be said, it came from NOTHING!
6. The creator may imagine many other universes.
7. Though it imagined an infinite universe or universes, itself the creator doesn't have to be infinite.
8. The universe's creator may be oblivious to what is beyond itself, like we are oblivious to what is beyond our universe.
9. For the inhabitants of a universe that universe is the total of all, because the universe was imagined to be like that.
thats a long trol post, in no aspect is this a syllogism
So just 1 question.. why would a creator wait several billion years waiting to have you / us in order to belive or worship it/him/her? Seems like a waste of time for an all powerful entity..
@@jasonhawryluk8669 No one is talking about worshiping, and the creator is not all mighty; it was, probably, created and lonely, so it created us.
.... Oh brother, talk about a boatload of empty, non-sensical bullcrap!