Sapolsky’s Theory of Evolutionary Psychology

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
  • Robert Sapolsky's theory of behavioral biology claims that behind every human action is a biological explanation. The concept centers around the idea that in order to truly understand human behavior, we must study it at all levels - from what happens inside the brain a nano second before a behavior occurred all the way to the time when humans and apes last shared a common ancestor. This is our first video with sound effects - enjoy it on headphones 😊 🎧#learn #evolutionary #psychology
    Thank you to our patrons:
    This video was made with the support of our Patrons: Adam G, Raman Srivastava, Karl Luckwald, Daniel Kramer, Marq Short, Ronny Thomas Scripz, Muhammad Humayun, Ginger, Tsungren Yang, Esther Chiang, Badrah, Cedric Wang, Eva Marie Koblin, Broke, Jeffrey Cassianna, Sergei Kukhariev, Andrea Basilio Rava, Petra, Adèle D, kritik bhimani, David Markham, Don Bone, John Zhang, Mathis Nu, Julien DUMESNIL and all the others. Thank you! To join them visit www.patreon.com/sprouts
    Learn more / sources:
    Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology, by Robert Sapolsky
    • 1. Introduction to Hum...
    Robert Sapolsky
    en.wikipedia.o...
    Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst / 187.robert_m_sapolsky C90DDC3D
    Video collaborators:
    Script: Jonas Koblin
    Drawings: Pascal Gaggelli
    Producer: Selina Bador
    Voice: Mithril
    Sound design: Miguel Ojeda
    Coloring: Nalin Fish
    Sound design: Miguel Ojeda
    Editing: Peera Lertsukittipongsa
    Proofreading: Susan Quarm
    Production Assistant: Bianka
    Made with MinuteVideos
    Link to full script: docs.google.co...
    Link to our website: www.sproutsschools.com
    Link to our Patreon site: www.patreon.com/sprouts

КОМЕНТАРІ • 225

  • @sprouts
    @sprouts  2 роки тому +6

    Support the sciences: patreon.com/sprouts

  • @victorguzman2302
    @victorguzman2302 3 роки тому +254

    So far, Sapolsky’s theory is the one that allow us to understand better the origin of our behavior. The guy is brilliant.

    • @daignat
      @daignat 3 роки тому +23

      And he doesn't get half of the credit he really deserves :(

    • @meanrhythm9048
      @meanrhythm9048 2 роки тому +10

      I could listen to Sapolsky all day. I think he's certainly in the ballpark if not very close to 'truth' here. I certainly believe contextualising ones early life vis his ideas has helped me understand and be kinder to myself and others.

    • @amatreshka194
      @amatreshka194 Рік тому

      He has his point, but it blocks the progress. I mean humans can't properly explore their brain, that's why it's good, but useless.

    • @Gabriel7159
      @Gabriel7159 10 місяців тому +3

      I’ve been thinking of this theory my whole life without knowing Sapolsky. But college has to be so damn expensive.

  • @sonalarescot6607
    @sonalarescot6607 3 роки тому +48

    I didnt know there was a theory for it! I thought all this was just common sense.

    • @fourteen113
      @fourteen113 3 роки тому +7

      It is your environment that made it feel as if it were common sense. People in the past believe that our behavior is from god, or Satan, or from the soul, whatever that is, and there are people who still do.

    • @burningice1762
      @burningice1762 3 роки тому

      @@fourteen113 if the believes can shape on who we are on a better way then be it. Science only know what is already created so if you only belive in science's physical explanation then let them be your human god

    • @fourteen113
      @fourteen113 3 роки тому +6

      @@burningice1762 Science is not a belief system as much as it is a truth seeking system. It is about facts, and the beauty of it is that it is essentially based on doubts and questions, so that you can forever keep on letting your ideas go whenever they are proven wrong.

    • @321sarahbob
      @321sarahbob 3 роки тому +2

      Common sense explained using the scientific method is kinda what a theory is, right?

    • @fourteen113
      @fourteen113 3 роки тому +4

      ​@@321sarahbob Yeah, and we call that a hypothesis, that's right before it becomes a theory!

  • @jannah4550
    @jannah4550 3 роки тому +3

    i want to know how they made these sorts of videos. with the aminations, the voice over and all. it was easy to understand

  • @matthewgarvin3943
    @matthewgarvin3943 3 роки тому +4

    Sapolsky argues against the use of terminology referring to "wiring". Because we are not hard-wired for specific behaviors. This is where most evolutionary psychology goes wrong. They try to generate findings on human adaptedness, rather than exploring human adaptability. Notably absent from this summary of Sapolsky is his emphasis on propensity rather than hard-wiring. We are not naturally violent or greedy or anything in particular, but these propensities emerge when the factors described in the video come into alignment.
    Our social and cultural institutions have a lot to do with the ubiquity with which some propensities seem to emerge. So if, for example, you believe that humans are naturally greedy and that an economic system such as capitalism is the best way to leverage humanity's greedy nature, you can find numerous examples of greed everywhere you look, because the very environment has been carefully designed to exploit that propensity.

  • @Biociety
    @Biociety 3 роки тому +4

    Behavioral biology are so interesting. Maybe biology of the human itself it's not the full factor of a person behavior, since there'll another factor like nurture.
    Regardless, love the video!! 😃😃

  • @user-um4di5qm8p
    @user-um4di5qm8p 3 роки тому +1

    Best little summary of Behave 👌

  • @brainstormingsharing1309
    @brainstormingsharing1309 3 роки тому +4

    Absolutely well done and definitely keep it up!!! 👍👍👍👍👍

  • @thijsjong
    @thijsjong 3 роки тому +3

    I live Saposkys series on behavior @ the Stanford youtube channel.

  • @petersisk3501
    @petersisk3501 2 місяці тому

    Without doubt we are enormously complex organisms. "Understanding" behavior can occur at many levels. It is likely impossible to understand all the layers that drive behavior, nor is it necessary. We are embedded in social matrices. Social systems consist of a framework of behavioral expectations and a repertoire of behaviors. It's a dance. For whatever complex reason, some people are more adept at this dance than others.

  • @rafaelchavez5664
    @rafaelchavez5664 3 роки тому +4

    I 100% agree with Sapolsky.

  • @fidelkva4810
    @fidelkva4810 Рік тому +1

    There are also genetic differences between humans that affect behavior. Without that, natural selection could not even happen. It’s also the scientific consensus that personlity and intelligence are largely genetic.

  • @rajendran.s6572
    @rajendran.s6572 3 роки тому +5

    I'm the first one here!
    Always like your content!!!!!

  • @dominicanfrankster
    @dominicanfrankster 3 роки тому +3

    Answer? Yes. Is it practical? No. We can never know the details of the entire movie. Judge, but not harshly, a helping hand is almost always better than even honest critique.

  • @Robin-bk2lm
    @Robin-bk2lm 9 місяців тому

    When?!?

  • @erenalfern909
    @erenalfern909 3 роки тому +2

    If he’s right...are we all just a complicated machine-?

    • @velocirock7421
      @velocirock7421 3 роки тому

      Yes.

    • @sarangmt
      @sarangmt 3 роки тому

      True to some point…if we train an ai or infinite generations of that ai for millions of years and we would find the generation of ai smart enough to understand it self. And find purpose of it’s existence among infinite realities and may be help humans to become type 5 civilisation on this vast fabric of space&time.
      But for fast root now we must find a better way to comprehend this level of detail of complicated circuits and predict next best response for specific stimulus by that being and make a better npc for my GTA 😹.

  • @sdmarlow3926
    @sdmarlow3926 Місяць тому

    eh.. seems more sociology explained by generational priors than actual evolution of behavior (which would just describe how we have behaviors, not looking for motiviations).

  • @nash984954
    @nash984954 2 роки тому

    Sapolsky makes a very good case, but can you ask is he right without putting forth another possibility other than, No, he's not right, not exactly? To say otherwise iws to offer nothing to counter, really. Soul, hmm, Didn't even that have the same beginning, as assuming the notion of what has no basis except as a speculation from perhaps religion?

  • @titiwhai
    @titiwhai Рік тому

    Take it to it's conclusion and no one is guilty of anything?

  • @doaimanariroll5121
    @doaimanariroll5121 3 роки тому +2

    at 11 second you say "natural selection" this is a technical mistake. Natural selection is one form of selection among many. I think its important to amend because evo psych haters use this exact mistake to straw man saploskys work.

    • @sprouts
      @sprouts  3 роки тому +1

      Thanks. Unfortunately we can’t anymore. UA-cam doesn’t allow editing.

    • @bradsillasen1972
      @bradsillasen1972 3 роки тому +1

      Hmmm, maybe I've been behind the door. Can you offer some examples of selection working on human genome and/or phenotypes which aren't natural, or not of natural derivation? This is a sincere question, not rhetoric.

    • @doaimanariroll5121
      @doaimanariroll5121 3 роки тому

      @@sprouts fair enough, only the most pedantic would notice “natural selection” is used colloquially to refer to any type of gene selection, but in evolutionary biology it means a very specific form of gene selection.
      I know you guys were probably using the colloquial term, because it is a “non technical” introduction to saplosky and that’s awsome.
      It’s just annoying see people using these semantic choices in bad faith to discredit absolute geniuses like saplosky.

    • @doaimanariroll5121
      @doaimanariroll5121 3 роки тому +3

      @@bradsillasen1972 in evolutionary biology “natural selection” means a gene was selected for because it was advantageous for the environment.
      So thicker more insulated fur would be selected for in a cold environment but not a hot environment for example.
      Sexual selection is where a gene is chosen by mates, a male peacocks feathers is actually disadvantageous in regards to the environment, but that’s what females choose to mate with.
      There are other methods like “bottle necking” where a disaster kills a huge percentage of the population, and only some survive, no gene was advantageous it just happened by chance.
      For example if a meteorite killed all humans on earth and only a handful of red heads survived and then all humans where red haired in the future.
      There or other things like “drift”. Where populations seperate due to a flood or something and only some genes of the population are present in the separated group
      as well as selective selection like what we do with do with domestic animals and plants.
      All of this is “natural” it’s just in technical evolutionary science terminology “ natural selection” means something very specific.

    • @bradsillasen1972
      @bradsillasen1972 3 роки тому +1

      @@doaimanariroll5121 Well taken and thanks for the elaborate clarification.

  • @ikhlashachlaf8289
    @ikhlashachlaf8289 3 роки тому

    Is this pam frome the office talking?

  • @ThatGuy-qj7fr
    @ThatGuy-qj7fr 9 місяців тому

    TAKES decisions? .....you mean MAKES decisions?

  • @SteveRichfield
    @SteveRichfield 2 роки тому

    Our present world is SO artificial. Why are women only half as strong as men? Could it be that they make bad choices, so that enforced mating with the strongest men usually produces better results than whatever women decide to do? Further, in a naked society, women can visually "shop" for the most desirable looking genitals - which are probably on the oldest men, and age is THE best indicator of genetic fitness. We would be better off returning to roots that actually improve the species and created us, than to try to hypothesize the basis of behavior in our VERY artificial and dysfunctional society. Fix the society, rather than trying to "fix" the people.

  • @ericsevyn5464
    @ericsevyn5464 2 роки тому

    Sapolsky's theory or a soul?? Hmm...

  • @Qo0_0
    @Qo0_0 3 роки тому

    🐟

  • @joker_news6270
    @joker_news6270 2 роки тому

    Just had to toss religious nonsense at the end of an evolution video?? why? lol

  • @BUSeixas11
    @BUSeixas11 3 роки тому

    “Sapolski’s theory”? Lol. He did not invent the idea that behavior comes from the biology of the brain, he only wrote e popular book about it

  • @vladuts
    @vladuts 3 роки тому

    Soo.... this was a video about nothing?

  • @regacc3594
    @regacc3594 3 роки тому

    i always respect your content .. and admire your scientific information (always benefit from it)
    but come on, "humans and chimpanzees shared ..." seriously?!

    • @sprouts
      @sprouts  3 роки тому +2

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor?wprov=sfti1 🤓🤟

    • @omaryleonard4264
      @omaryleonard4264 3 роки тому +1

      Why chimpanzees are not change or they are waiting for evolution!!! You know what I’m Asia there is so many monkeys with different skin colors and do they waiting for evolution or this research was for the purposes of individual there is so many logical reasons and Questions do not manipulate peoples with science 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣💩💩💩💩💩💩

    • @regacc3594
      @regacc3594 3 роки тому +1

      @@omaryleonard4264 exactly 👏

    • @regacc3594
      @regacc3594 3 роки тому

      @@sprouts sharing a gene doe not prove anything
      and in 10 lines one can read 'may have' ... well, one does not build an entire, firm belief based on propabilities

  • @nympholepticmonkey352
    @nympholepticmonkey352 2 роки тому

    If the alternative theory to Sapolsky's model involves souls, I'll take the one that doesn't indulge meta magical mumbo jumbo thanks.

  • @apersonlikeanyother6895
    @apersonlikeanyother6895 Рік тому +68

    Sapolsky's videos on UA-cam taught me more about people than the rest of my life did

    • @shivaagrawal6565
      @shivaagrawal6565 Рік тому +1

      That is why people should read and understand philosophy and all.

  • @tommym.1412
    @tommym.1412 3 роки тому +36

    He is 100 percent on point. Everything you go through and experience in life can affect you. It’s no joke and he explains it in a way that is engaging and pulls you in. Sapolskyism!

  • @QuidamByMoonlight
    @QuidamByMoonlight Рік тому +4

    This video didn’t really adequately cover Sapolsky’s views in my opinion. This was essentially a straw man video that oversimplifies his Human Behavioral Biology perspective from his Stanford course, and describes that. It was low key critical while pretending to be objective is my take.

  • @naj3x
    @naj3x 3 роки тому +129

    As much as culture have an impact in our behaviour, It´s surprising how many people often forget (or choose to ignore) that our animal nature can still and in my opinion mostly is a variable for explaining so many behaviours, which makes them much more difficult to change.

    • @sampajam6256
      @sampajam6256 3 роки тому +9

      most study show that both are just interdependent, our nature influence our culture and our culture influence our nature, it's like a while loop in coding with no begining and no end, they are not just denyer, they are totally missing the key point to make us change toward a better world

    • @burningice1762
      @burningice1762 3 роки тому +7

      @@sampajam6256 actually there's an end of it and that is by the change of the environment that affects neuroplaticity and create new type pf evolution

    • @sampajam6256
      @sampajam6256 3 роки тому +4

      @@burningice1762i'm aware of that, that is why i said it's a loop, neuroplasticity allow us to adapt at our environnement, we also have an ability to improve our environnement, so in a sense there is no begining and no end (both are interdependent to each other, improving one affect the other), but i admit personnaly i mainly think all we do is natural because of this fact, however there is a dumb debate about what is natural and what is not and that is why people should learn that both are interdependent and affect each other

    • @aceventuraliedetective6267
      @aceventuraliedetective6267 3 роки тому +1

      In dutch they say “het aard van het beestje veranderd niet” you cannot change a animal, you can train it

    • @Geezerelli
      @Geezerelli 2 роки тому

      He says there is no free will, so how can we change.

  • @PAVLAKOS67
    @PAVLAKOS67 3 роки тому +67

    I believe the theory is correct. It is almost impossible to understand human behaviour due to the infinite factors, present and past, that contribute to the result. However we might get some results by using some data that might be of greater impact than other in the resulting behaviour.

    • @laurasagenhere
      @laurasagenhere 3 роки тому

      Yes.

    • @shivaagrawal6565
      @shivaagrawal6565 Рік тому

      The theory is correct on theoretical grounds but false on practical grounds; in a way the numberline is. There is a infinite value between 0 and 1, theoretically it's impossible to reach on 1 but practically you could in principle count 0 and further, bcz at macro level those very minute variables loose their significance or we can say converge with one another to give rise to emergent property. Thus you can actually predict someone's behaviour without even knowing his genetics and evolutionary history. That's what our brain does. If it bothers itself on every variable it can never give you answers and intutions, but you might have noticed that gaining knowledge improves quality of those answers and intutions. Thank you.

  • @BrandonHortman
    @BrandonHortman 3 роки тому +20

    I love him. Dr. Sapolsky is an absolute treasure

  • @alieninthecaribbean
    @alieninthecaribbean 3 роки тому +5

    Most people hate nuanced and complex answers. They want simple black and white dichotomies and our culture and education continue to feed into the laziness or simple hero or villain narratives.

  • @tw3638
    @tw3638 Рік тому +5

    "We are complicated. So you better be really sure, really careful and cautious before you decide you understand why somebody did something, especially if that is something you are judging harshly"

  • @PakBudiTarigan
    @PakBudiTarigan Рік тому +6

    This is the best theory until now. I really satisfied by his theory

  • @polarbianarchy3333
    @polarbianarchy3333 3 роки тому +4

    And we can use this to realize we construct the environment that then our nervous systems develop in. And apply science to build more mutually sustainable and secure communities, together

  • @2033971
    @2033971 3 роки тому +5

    I am a simple human when I see Robert Sapolsky Name I click Like!

  • @Larry00000
    @Larry00000 2 роки тому +5

    Sapolsky revealed the truth which is too complex to use at a detail level, so to function we can only invent practical shortcuts that work nearly all of the time.

  • @angelinarobert622
    @angelinarobert622 3 роки тому +8

    i view people as a mix bag of emotions, and emotions come in gradients not just binary of positive and negative emotions. Each emotion serves a purpose and helped our ancestors survive and reproduce. We are just a link in the ever changing evolutionary chain. So i agree with Robert Sapolsky's theory. it's like life is an a chemical reaction that keeps on going and going. like the Energizer Bunny.

    • @karthidrive55
      @karthidrive55 3 роки тому +1

      Viewing Emotions as Gradient.. Thanks for this tip 😊

    • @nukacolacompany2534
      @nukacolacompany2534 2 роки тому

      There's no doubt about us being mere chemical reactions happening in an inconceivable amount of ways. I know thats what the video said but it seems like you just recently figured it out in your comment. I see people as robots made of soft tissue its an interesting outlook to have.

  • @dspondike
    @dspondike 10 місяців тому +2

    Robert Sapolsky is an organism in space-time that brings together a confluence of information that is remarkably rich and informative, if not unique. The sheer amount of research and experience coming together is a human anomaly. There are hundreds if not thousands of spandrels of exploration to follow in any one of his collected works. Highly recommended reading.

  • @jona_KardCiv1
    @jona_KardCiv1 Рік тому +1

    Trying to explain the behavior of a single individual misses the point. Society is a herd of dumb animals that respond to stimuli.

  • @bradsillasen1972
    @bradsillasen1972 3 роки тому +6

    Dang, after watching his whole Stanford neurobiology lecture series I coulda just watched this ;-) Nah, good to get down in the weeds. But this is a really nice summary IMO, thanks:) I wonder what Sapolsky would say about it?

    • @lindakautzman7388
      @lindakautzman7388 2 роки тому +2

      I think he would be appalled that he is being credited with a theory that is the result of the behavioral science work of many people. He is a brilliant lecturer and biology scientist.

    • @bradsillasen1972
      @bradsillasen1972 2 роки тому

      @@lindakautzman7388 Very good point which I missed although I know better. Thanks for pointing out what Sapolsky himself often acknowledges.

  • @luisgcr
    @luisgcr 3 роки тому +3

    As Yuval says, our world is too complicated for our primate brains to understand

  • @MarcCastellsBallesta
    @MarcCastellsBallesta 2 роки тому +4

    I came here for the drawing of Sapolsky. This guy is great.

  • @JohnWilliams-channel
    @JohnWilliams-channel 2 роки тому +2

    It's an interesting theory about human instinct, and about cultural indoctrination, but the human mind is far more malleable and it is not unusual for people to free themselves of both. In fact to be happy within society just must do both.

  • @chaitany4443
    @chaitany4443 3 роки тому +7

    Sir , make a video on how to be energetic all times

  • @qwertyqart
    @qwertyqart 3 роки тому +4

    thank you for including transcript!

  • @nisanight2247
    @nisanight2247 3 роки тому +9

    My neighbors adopted 4 kids, different races, different cultures, different ages. They were all unique but they shared a commonality, they were wonderful kids and grew up happy and successful. Nurture matters.

    • @lykarabbit3
      @lykarabbit3 Рік тому +3

      Absolutely..It's mindbending to me that there was a time when that was even in doubt. Nurture - or lack of it - impacts people so much more than was ever understood, so I'm really glad we're coming to really see how it affects us all just as much (how much will probably be forever debated) as our genetic makeup.

  • @michaela7759
    @michaela7759 2 роки тому +2

    Behavior is probably a result of complex systems, what makes almost impossible to validate Sapolskys' points. But his theory sounds cool anyway.

  • @danpatterson8009
    @danpatterson8009 2 роки тому +3

    Pretty much everything is more complex than we think. The closer we look, the more details emerge.

    • @latinaalma1947
      @latinaalma1947 2 роки тому

      Yes being a psychologist, research amd professor is definitely humbling...it is a field that changes comstantly based on new research trimming and refining or outright DISCARDING old theories about how behavior.is caused,how minds operate. Spend an etire lifetime as I have and you know alot more than you did when you first started, but you never stop.learning. Only a few things s are settled science in our field but we know SO So much more than when I got my PhD in 1979. Saplosky,is one of our treasured minds....

  • @harshporwal
    @harshporwal 3 роки тому +1

    I don't think science can ever advance do much

  • @sickdream4067
    @sickdream4067 Рік тому +2

    came for the information, stayed for the art

  • @srijabhattacharya9077
    @srijabhattacharya9077 2 роки тому

    If anyone should start a cult... And can embody the term "cult following"... ROBERT SAPOLSKY IS THE ANSWER. PERIOD

  • @MeleanDialogue
    @MeleanDialogue 5 місяців тому

    While it's all correct there are statistical approaches which can predict to quite a high degree likely behaviors especially with large groups of people and careful categotizations.

  • @bryanutility9609
    @bryanutility9609 8 місяців тому

    The problem with Salolsky is he emphasizes environment over genetics & denies race.

  • @ganeshprem3043
    @ganeshprem3043 3 роки тому +15

    I agree with this.
    There are so much we don't understand about behaviors right now and yet we are looking in the wrong direction for answers.
    People need to listen to more evolutionary psychologists/biologists than they do social scientists and the world would be a far less dishonest place.
    Great presentation! subscribed!

    • @NenaLavonne
      @NenaLavonne 3 роки тому

      Agree!!!

    • @SiMeGamer
      @SiMeGamer 3 роки тому +2

      I'd say that the best place to look for why people behave the way they do is philosophy. Philosophy informs one's focused choices - ethics specifically. Every non-decision based action does have a place of study in biology and culture, but focused decisions are made based on one's ethics which is the realm of philosophy (epistemology, metaphysics, ethics politics and aesthetics). It's very complicated stuff. I know I wouldn't know to answer. I just know it's the place where one should look for the answers.

  • @MrMrtvozornik
    @MrMrtvozornik 10 місяців тому

    All sweet and wholesome, except when you remember two things.
    1. You can't really offer everyone that much time to truly understand them, we have limited time in this world. Even if everyone were smart and educated enough to be capable of it, we'd still take short cuts. Most people are nothing but NPCs to us, or roles. Most often than not our primary concern is are they a threat to us.
    2. We don't have to understand the whole process to understand it's bad. Just how you don't need to know how fire works to understand that you shouldn't put your hand in it, or burn your house down. Sadly, same is with humans, we don't need to know a whole ass backstory of a bum (since you put that as an example) for us to "judge" them. Because firstly and primarily we're not judging them in isolation, but in regard to our existence. You can quickly deduce what bums are drug addicts, what are alcohol addicts etc. The worse the addiction the more threat they represent, since heroin addict needs way more money than alcohol one, it stands to reason they ought to steal and rob more, therefore they're higher threat. We don't have to think they are bad people just for us to distance ourselves with a view that they're potentially bad for us, even if it's not true, better safe than sorry. We evolved to be better safe than sorry, because those who didn't got eaten by predators, evolution is VERY stingy about "benefit of the doubt" and moralism like that. People can sit in their ivory towers all they want talking about "everyone deserves a fair chance" etc. but once you get mugged by a bum with meth scabs all over them, you're NEVER going to give benefit of a doubt to anyone else who has meth scabs. First and foremost, my skin first, if you look like a threat, it's only smart for other people to stay away.

  • @Geezerelli
    @Geezerelli 2 роки тому +1

    How does a trauma to frontal lobes and being comatose for a month at 5 years cause personality changes?

  • @energymaven7537
    @energymaven7537 Рік тому

    *Sapolsky is an evolutionary biologist, not an evolutionary psychologist. World of difference. Ironically, it's the evolutionary psychologists who tend to over-explain behavior with biology, because they don't totally understand biology. Evolutionary biologists understand the limits of biology, and tend to look more to culture and environmental context to fill in the gaps. This is why you won't see an evolutionary biologist making blanket statements about, say, how men think vs how women think. It isn't that simple.

  • @MLouah-gp9ef
    @MLouah-gp9ef 2 роки тому

    Wish sapolsky’s voice was used here. Hers is annoying.

  • @Englishcomprendsive_input
    @Englishcomprendsive_input 3 місяці тому

    It's all about the BIG BANG!

  • @HealthPoliticsAndProtein
    @HealthPoliticsAndProtein Рік тому

    I think there is a problem with scope. What exactly does the video mean by "explain"?

  • @davidlakvold8789
    @davidlakvold8789 2 роки тому

    What a silly theory based on a series of tenuous attributions. It is akin to Flip Wilson's old comedy line "the devil made me do it" only the devil has now been replaced with "history". History made me do it. Because "history made me do it" I am no longer responsible, great.

  • @kenfalloon3186
    @kenfalloon3186 2 роки тому

    Sapolsky is an ultra determinist. I personally don't like his theory. It basically states that people have no agency whatsoever in the unfolding of their lives. Kind of scientific fatalism.

  • @bassammoga4670
    @bassammoga4670 Рік тому

    verey nice veidos can I translate them to Arabic ?they will be a huge benifit to ahuge population there .

  • @ayushmansinghrathore
    @ayushmansinghrathore 3 роки тому +1

    The voice is like Pam(Jenna fisher) from 'the office'

  • @Tvly2011
    @Tvly2011 Рік тому

    That sketch w/him looking at the primates world be a good tshirt

  • @jadedqueen7782
    @jadedqueen7782 3 роки тому +1

    We have the wild behaviour & the civilized one. Being in a society means u have to constantly reiterate your wild nature into the existing rules. People in power don't have to. That's why when u r in power most people just choose to ignore the proprietary & do "horrible" shit. But it's just freedom of choice.
    We all have that animal kingdom nonsense. It's just u have to battle it out everyday. Most people fail or win on a particular day. It's add to the overall experience really. We r constantly trying to suppress an old & deep part of our nature. It's the madness within

  • @austinlay4085
    @austinlay4085 2 роки тому

    Well made vid but at the end I think there’s a false choice between his ideas and free will

  • @paifu.
    @paifu. Рік тому

    1:15 Neuroplasticity

  • @permadimas
    @permadimas 2 роки тому

    Found nothing here..its just an intro for his theory 😞

  • @joseaugustolambertcerqueir1796
    @joseaugustolambertcerqueir1796 2 роки тому +1

    It's so "simple": we're born carrying all genetic informations of our ancestors. They can determine, more or less, our physical and beahiour depending on our relationship with the environment (education, culture, events, etc). Some of those characteristics are unavoidable. Others can be attenuated or powered depending on the degree of social repression ou stimulus, respectively.

  • @dpc0809
    @dpc0809 2 роки тому

    9x out of 10 I can tell if a movie is crap in the first 30 seconds.

  • @mariaradulovic3203
    @mariaradulovic3203 Рік тому +1

    His book Behave is brilliant, a must read.

  • @venkataponnaganti
    @venkataponnaganti 10 місяців тому

    Great thinker.

  • @kop7125
    @kop7125 3 роки тому +1

    This theory is right. No denying it especially if you don't have helicopter parents.

  • @Daniel-uk6yr
    @Daniel-uk6yr 2 роки тому +1

    Problem is, selection/adaptation is only one of the mechanisms of evolution. There are more mechanisms through which mutations and genes pass on.

    • @timeisup3094
      @timeisup3094 2 роки тому

      Sapolsky also argues this. It seems the person who created this video didn’t include this.

    • @Daniel-uk6yr
      @Daniel-uk6yr 2 роки тому

      @@timeisup3094 he makes it look as if sapolsky is a "evolutionary psychologist" which he is not

    • @timeisup3094
      @timeisup3094 2 роки тому

      @@Daniel-uk6yr Yes! If anything he finds evolutionary psychology contemptuous. 😂

  • @dancegod1691
    @dancegod1691 2 роки тому +1

    I don’t know if he’s making any new claims but his philosophy is vital to maintaining intellectual curiosity

  • @paulaperez2558
    @paulaperez2558 2 роки тому

    I don't really agree with the first part of the video. Understanding the human or any animal behaviour won't be completed by the knowledge of our neurons. Of course we need neurons for behaving but a psychological process is not equal to the biological process. That's in fact a reductionism very used in Psychology. Explaining psychology by only biological process can't really explain anything about psychology.
    For example, if you see someone walking and see the biological process you can see the person is using x muscles, have x hormones and etc but you can never explain why is that person walking. Maybe he is going to visit her mom, but neurons will never "tell"you so. That information doesnt exist in neurons. However it doesnt mean that we have to fall into dualism.

    • @sprouts
      @sprouts  2 роки тому +1

      Yes. Good point

  • @toxiconproductions1623
    @toxiconproductions1623 3 роки тому +1

    I think we could, but it takes time

  • @allenporras9798
    @allenporras9798 3 роки тому +1

    great content! hi can i know what software you use?

  • @coryjeremiah4745
    @coryjeremiah4745 2 роки тому

    Wwhaa...wwhaaat???

  • @arafatrahman8621
    @arafatrahman8621 3 роки тому +1

    Always love your videos....2nd view...2nd comment

    • @sprouts
      @sprouts  3 роки тому +1

      Yay! Thank you!

  • @QuantumPupusa
    @QuantumPupusa 3 роки тому +1

    The soul ideology at the end made me snicker 😆😂

    • @sstolarik
      @sstolarik 2 роки тому

      Me, too. I rolled my eyes and thought oh boy, here we go. I do have to say, however… what’s with our consciousness and the old Greek concept of “Genius” which is the idea of a separate “soul” or Guardian Angel (not religious) idea that tries to guide us in the direction of either your intended fate, or its passion. I think, therefore it drives me crazy! 🤗

  • @selfelements8037
    @selfelements8037 3 роки тому

    Evolutionary Biology!

    • @sprouts
      @sprouts  3 роки тому

      Oppps! Thanks

    • @selfelements8037
      @selfelements8037 3 роки тому

      @@sprouts This is a very nice channel. Education should be free! :)

  • @727eman
    @727eman 2 роки тому

    Unfortunately this video came off as manipulative. The sounds and images can end up making you think negatively of evolutionary biology and all the science that there is behind it.

    • @sprouts
      @sprouts  2 роки тому

      Really?

    • @727eman
      @727eman 2 роки тому

      ​@@sprouts Yes, very much so! I love evolutionary psychology, Sapolsky is brilliant and I'm loving exploring Sprouts so far, but this video was weird. I thought it was anti evolution the first time I finished it.
      The woman's voice came off as doubting but educating, and the images and sounds for example at 1:00, and 1:10 triggered negative responses. Think baby crying on a plane and how it makes you feel.
      Honestly I spent the video wondering why it was being presented this way and then when the idea of a soul was introduced around 3:15 as a possible counter w no background explanation to behavioral biology I was even more confused even though I don't think there was negative intent there.
      I think overall the way the message was presented was a bit cloudy and perhaps could have been edited differently to elicit more positive physiological and psychological responses 😅 love y'all and support y'all tho!

    • @sprouts
      @sprouts  2 роки тому +1

      @@727eman thanks for the deep anayslis. We had a problem with voice, so it sounds very flat. As for the text, it was pretty much 100% orginal Sapolski.
      Anyways. Thanks again for the good feedback, I'll review it at times.
      All the best!

  • @harshrao4495
    @harshrao4495 3 роки тому +1

    This theory obviously does not apply to everyone. Psychopaths for example... some behaviours don't have a reason or "why" behind them... it's just based on a wild intuition or heat of the moment

    • @chandrakanthchandrakanth8208
      @chandrakanthchandrakanth8208 3 роки тому +2

      Actually.. his theory does explain why psychopaths are the way they are.. check his lecture series on behavioural biology.. aggression part.. you will understand..

    • @Fee_V
      @Fee_V 3 роки тому

      @@chandrakanthchandrakanth8208 You beat me to it! I concur. That series is fascinating.

    • @danurkresnamurti3598
      @danurkresnamurti3598 3 роки тому

      are you sure about that? Psychopaths have their own reason .

    • @chandrakanthchandrakanth8208
      @chandrakanthchandrakanth8208 3 роки тому +3

      @Danur Kresna Murti yes I'm sure.. It's basically due to impaired functioning of some areas like the amygdala, prefrontal cortex, insula.. so the reason is biological

  • @nikhilgeorge4720
    @nikhilgeorge4720 3 роки тому +1

    Mr sapolsky, is he alive...from the contents seen i believe we share some common beliefs.. I'd love to meet him

    • @danielbalogh
      @danielbalogh 3 роки тому +1

      That guy is a science rockstar.
      You find a lot of content from him here.

    • @sweetstuff772
      @sweetstuff772 3 роки тому +2

      I met Mr. Sapolsky when he was a guest lecturer in Oklahoma. He’s wonderful! He took a photo w me and even gave me some career advice when I asked :)

    • @cbr7024
      @cbr7024 3 роки тому

      @@sweetstuff772 can I ask you for some advice to become successful?

    • @bradsillasen1972
      @bradsillasen1972 3 роки тому

      I'd love to take darshan in his exalted presence :D))

  • @Talkinglife
    @Talkinglife 3 роки тому

    Nice

  • @BoylenInk
    @BoylenInk 3 роки тому

    The belief in a soul does not imply biology has no affect on decision making. No one who believes in a soul would say anything remotely like that last sentence. This is a bigoted description of what many people believe. I came here to learn something about Evolutionary Psychology. Is bigotry a part of this theory?

  • @brianedwards7142
    @brianedwards7142 2 роки тому

    A little from column A, a little from column B. On the one hand I know what it is to be judged unfairly with no evidence but on the other I remember countless times I should have listened to my hunch and didn't.

  • @qbpie
    @qbpie 3 роки тому

    Oof. Love y'all and the vid, but yikes does that mic sound bad. Laptop or phone mic I'm guessing? Either way, I would recommend a better mic or, in a pinch, some EQ and de-essing. It's really nasally and boxy.

  • @itsoktobewhite6377
    @itsoktobewhite6377 2 роки тому

    There's truth to it, but it's not the "end-all be-all." It doesn't explain the cultural patterns of behavior, nor obvious examples of human nature.
    I might not care much for his theory, but I really enjoyed this presentation.

  • @ponybottle
    @ponybottle 3 роки тому

    I would think Sapolsky would refer to it as an hypothesis and not a theory. A Theory in science is the highest form of knowledge i.e an explanation which is supported by all data and Laws pertaining to that science. As a 'Suggested Mechanism' the wordHypothesis should be the term used.

  • @justanothernick3984
    @justanothernick3984 2 роки тому

    I don't think we can measure it in synapses in the brain and I'd like to see someone take another approach, through consciousness, what it means and what "built in features" it holds with the active neocortex and the subconscious, self-preservation and all of those things.
    I wouldn't know where to turn.

  • @davidmeszaros9109
    @davidmeszaros9109 3 роки тому

    Sociobiology= evolution through natural selection shapes proximate and ultimate mechanisms that modulate behavioral responses