I can't help but notice that some people have commented on this particular podcast in a negative way and also admitted that they didn't bother listening to it? I'm not an Ezra Klein fan or Vox fan, but this was an interesting and honest conversation. Also, in this conversation Ezra was charitable in his perspectives of other people who hold different political views.
let me take a gues... the Rogan/Bernie "controversy" poured more fuel into that fire. Vox (among others) is just blatantly lying about Rogan and completely misrepresenting his views and morality. It's disgusting! Holding different political views is one thing, lying about and smearing others is just fucked up nonsense lots of people don't want to spend time with anymore. Is everything Ezra Klein says related to that category of nonsense? Of course not, but there are many people out there who have equally or much more interesting thoughts and they don't see the need to misrepresent the views of those they don't agree with. If I have the chance to, instead, listen to Steven Pinker for example, with whom I disagree on some issues, I'd much rather do that because as a whole he seems to be a guy I could hang out and have a good time with. Ezra Klein? Much less likely... and I'm very much to the left but the way these "beyond" left folks want to police everything and shut down / destroy anyone who has ever, in their entire life, said a "wrong" word is utterly stupid and does nothing but bolster "beyond" right morons like Trump, who, in essence, stand very much for the same kind of authoritarian rule and grandstanding.
@@patrickbarnes9874 Ezra doesn't argue against polarization he kind of advocates for how to improve the government so that it can function better under a polarized populace.
Politics is hard to talk about because it is so intertwined with our identity and when that is challenged, it challenges your culture, your upbringing, your belief system. Of course, there is so much cognitive dissonance and affirmation bias involved. And it certainly makes sense that our American political system tends to effective polarization. I don't think this analysis was off base and I don't understand the criticism for it. It wasn't a deep dive but it was a thoughtful survey of the topic. It's a podcast. I have never heard of Klein so that may have something to do with it, less bias and background information. Sometimes it's better not to have a dog in the fight.
I don't consider it smearing (as far as I remember). I think it was mostly fair criticism, with a few bad takes here and there. Sam isn't a saint either. He can be hard-headed who doesn't listen to criticism or opposing views very well. That's what happened with his discussion with Ezra when he went on full defence even though Ezra had some valid points.
@@eliasE989 Ezra lauded serious accusations against Sam that he repeatedly failed to substantiate, hence why so many people found him to be disingenuous and reprehensible. Sam, like any other human being, isn't a saint, so what??? How is that relevant to Ezra blatantly slandering and posting libel about the dude? For what it's worth, Sean isn't a saint either, who truly is?
@@eliasE989 "I think it was mostly fair criticism, with a few bad takes here and there" - yeah like when Klein asked Sam Harris about racial and gender composition of his podcast guests - implying that Harris has racist/misogynistic bias? In a way that one question distilled the essence of that useless discussion.
I listen to ALL of your podcasts Sean Carroll. However, I'm curious as to why most scientists talk about humans in a very anthropocentric way. Most people analyze humans in a way that makes it seem as though humans are separate from the rest of our physical, chemical, biological and astronomical existence. I'm curious if Anastasia E. Rigney of the University of Texas at Austin or Jonas T. Kaplan of the Dana and David Dornsife Cognitive Neuroimaging Center at the University of Southern California could be invited to your podcasts? These neuroscientists have analyzed neuropolitics based off of functional magnetic resonance imaging in contrast to analyzing things purely based off of human interactions. At 50:18 there is actually a scientific source to back up this claim: Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidence Jonas T. Kaplan, Sarah I. Gimbel, and Sam Harris www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5180221/ There are other scientific studies that analyzes people's brain's with fMRI data: The functional role of ventral anterior cingulate cortex in social evaluation: disentangling valence from subjectively rewarding opportunities Anastasia E Rigney, Jessica E Koski, and Jennifer S Beer www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5755235/ Nonpolitical Images Evoke Neural Predictors of Political Ideology Woo-Young Ahn, Kenneth T. Kishida, [...], and P. Read Montague www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245707/ Neural Representations of Belief Concepts: A Representational Similarity Approach to Social Semantics Anna Leshinskaya, Juan Manuel Contreras, [...], and Jason P. Mitchell www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5939197/ Politics on the Brain: An fMRI Investigation Kristine M. Knutson, Jacqueline N. Wood, [...], and Jordan Grafman www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828689/ Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans Darren Schreiber, Greg Fonzo, [...], and Martin P. Paulus journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052970 Based on this fMRI and neuroanatomical data, one can infer that liberals, conservatives, libertarians and socialists are behaving and voting based on personal pain, pleasure, reward and punishment in contrast to a) systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. b) many-valued logic, Dempster-Shafer theory, or probability theory with rules for inference such as Bayes' rule. Perhaps there can be a discussion on how CRISPR CAS-9 and Nanorobots could optimize people's synapses, neurons, neurotransmitters, dendrites, axona, single nucleotide polymorphisms and alleles and how this could affect politics. There are scientific already researching this: Editing the Central Nervous System Through CRISPR/Cas9 Systems Agustin Cota-Coronado, Néstor Fabián Díaz-Martínez, [...], and N. Emmanuel Díaz-Martínez www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnmol.2019.00110/full Integration of Nanobots Into Neural Circuits As a Future Therapy for Treating Neurodegenerative Disorders Arthur Saniotis, Maciej Henneberg, and Abdul-Rahman Sawalma www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5872519/
I haven't listened to this podcast yet, so forgive me if I'm ignorant regarding your comment as it relates to this episode, but I was wondering a few things regarding what you've said. Do you realize that you're exploring turning human beings into Vulcans of Star trek fame? It's fascinating sure, and certainly worth discussing, alongside a vigorous and objective discussion of the ethics and the dangers, facets I find conspicuously missing from your considerations. I'm not accusing you, I understand the need to ask your question in a narrowly focused way (which unavoidably is still so very broad), and I'm therefore assuming that you haven't considered or are not concerned with these aspects of the topic. So please consider this comment as more of an "interesting, please say more" statement. You said "...on how CRISPR CAS-9 and Nanorobots could optimize people's synapses, neurons, neurotransmitters, dendrites, axona, single nucleotide polymorphisms and alleles and how this could affect politics." Are you only concerned with that aspect of life (i.e politics), or have you considered the implications of this editing for music, art, literature... creativity, empathy, compassion? What are the implications of decisions made for millions/billions of people based solely on logical extrapolation and objective truth? What would this do to our relationships? The hypothetical gains are enchanting, but have you considered the hypothetical price? Even just to yourself? How would you feel about your mother, if your brain were so altered? (I understand that such alterations would only affect offspring, so no one human being would ever experience a pre and then a post alteration life, but just try to imagine you could wake up tomorrow, modified in the way you suggest.) Further, have you considered that faulty, blinding human passions are the drivers of discovery? As Einstein was finalizing his theory, was he elated, burning with thoughts of the implications to his life? What role did his ego play in moving him forward? Did Galileo look at the stars with yearning wonder, or did he only think about them in if/then terms? When Archimedes was run through by a Roman soldier, was it passion or logic that drove him to defy the soldier in favor of continued mathematical problem solving? Can there be such a thing as a dispassionate genius, whether occurring naturally or through human scientific intervention? I think the anthropocentrism you're identifying is a legacy from the "God created me uniquely in the universe and gave the earth to me for my use" paradigm that has universally dominated civilization since the first words were spoken. On such a timescale, the enlightenment (arguably the opposite of this paradigm and the natural road towards the humans you're envisioning) is a tiny blip. Shouldn't we give it a chance to occur naturally? To what end? How do we decide? Can you name any one person who you would trust to edit themselves in a responsible and wise way that would benefit all society and not just the individual? If so can you name twenty, a thousand? What has disqualified the remaining billions? If the editing technology could make those remaining billions wise and responsible, would you make it a societal requirement? I'm obviously more sci-fi than contemporary knowledge here, and I don't have citations to deep explorations of my concerns, nevertheless I'm sure you can see that these are important questions... how might you go about answering them, even in the most scant and/or hypothetical way?
@@ZippyLeroux I don't think the implications of what I'm saying can be seriously discussed if we're going to start the conversation off with comparing the inevitability of using CRISPR cas-9 and nanorobots to optimize the brain with fictional characters from a T.V. show. And I watch Star Trek The Next Generation and the new Picard series but what I'm talking about is real life. Discussing the dangers of nanorobots and CRISPR cas-9 is needed. Scientists cannot be as hasty as Dr. He Jiankui. There must be evolutionary optimization algorithms and more iterations and rigorous protocols when it comes to analyzing how these things could adversely affect human beings. But when I say adversely, I'm talking something that would make then less healthy. However, questioning the 'ethics' of nanorobots and CRISPR cas-9 is anthropocentric. Bacteria, Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, Mammals, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalis and denisovans We're not the Pinnacle of evolutionary biology when it comes to intelligence so it's clear to see that homo sapiens will to be either. The age of homo cyberneticus has been here since Yuri Gagarin and Alan Shepard went into space. If you want to be technical, they were cyborgs. CRISPR cas-9 and nanorobots can ENHANCE creativity in the middle cingulate cortex/insula cortex, superior temporal gyrus/angular gyrus, anterior cingulate cortex/caudate nucleus, culmen/declive, thalamus, left fusiform gyrus, and right middle and inferior frontal gyri. String theorist Clifford Victor Johnson (who was on one of Sean Carroll podcasts) plays the trumpet, rocket scientist Wernher von Braun took cello lessons from composer Paul Hindemith and physicist Albert Einstein played the violin. I too compose music. I infer that things from the parameterizations in twelve-tone technique to the cutoff frequency in synthesizes helped me understand certain scientific concepts more. It's obvious that creativity is needed when it comes to how scientists think about science itself. But when it comes to empathy and compassion I suggest you listen to episode 34 of Sean Carroll podcast with Paul Bloom. I'm not so sure if these are things that we want to necessarily keep. Empathy can be weaponized. The Oxford dictionary states that empathy is: "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another." Nevertheless, just because you can 'understand' and share the feelings of another person, (which I also doubt one can truly do) doesn't mean that you will act upon those feelings rationally. One also has to ask why does one have to have empathy to help a person out? Scientists Carla L. Harenski, David M. Thornton, and Kent A. Kiehl have done fMRI studies on the Increased fronto-temporal activation during pain observation in sexual sadism and scientists Siyang Luo, Yiyi Zhu, and Qianting Kong have done fMRI studies on the oxytocinergic system modulates sadistic context-dependent empathy in humans. Empathy, sadism and sadomasochism are based on personal pain, pleasure, reward and punishment rather than the scientific method, inferences or evolutionary optimization algorithms. My wife and I discuss nanorobots, nanomachines, molecular motors and CRISPR cas-9 every 2 days are so. Even though we are going to college to pursue Quantum Cosmology, Experimental Physics and Computational physics, we often discuss interdisciplinary ways on how we could contribute to nanorobotics and genetic engineering. So yes, we are very well aware of the implications. Honestly, asking me how I 'feel' about this is anthropocentric. I can only tell you what I infer, know or don't know. As for my mother, she was a bit skeptical but she believes the pros outweigh the cons. However, I will be willing to tell you that most people I talk to about this don't like it. But I do want to discuss why they don't like it. Most of them masquerade hedonism as free-will, creativity and empathy. I infer that they are not truly concerned about a deep philosophical discussion about agency, free-will or creativity. Most of their rebuttals are solely on the basis of their pursuit of pleasure and sensual self-indulgence. If I woke up tomorrow and people were doing things based off of rational thought instead of hedonism, pain, pleasure, reward and personal punishment I don't think I would feel any kind of resistance towards it. As for Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei and Archimedes I'm going to refer to a paper named: "Toward a Neurobiological Basis for Understanding Learning in University Modeling Instruction Physics Courses by Eric Brewe, Jessica E. Bartley, Michael C. Riedel et. al." The students in this fMRI study exhibited physics reasoning-related brain activity at the pre-instruction time point in four general brain areas, the prefrontal cortex, the parietal cortex, the temporal lobes, and the right cerebellum More specifically, in the prefrontal cortex (PFC), activation peaks were observed in the left superior frontal gyrus (SFG), dorsomedial PFC (dmPFC), bilateral dorsolateral PFC (dlPFC), inferior frontal gyri (IFG), and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). Within the posterior parietal cortex, brain activity was observed bilaterally in the supramarginal gyri, intraparietal sulcus (IPS), and angular gryi (AG). Large bilateral clusters of activation during physics reasoning were also observed in middle temporal (MT) and medial superior temporal (MST) areas. These same patterns of task-related brain activity from the pre-instruction stage were also observed when performing a similar assessment at the post-instruction stage. I would put the function of each one of these neuroanatomical parts of the brain but I want you to look this up for yourself. Literally type in these different parts of the brain and look up their function. This is way deeper than just passion, emotion or hedonism. I find that during discussions like this people like to talk about the scientists instead of the science. Evolving naturally is based off of a term named "allopatric speciation". However, I infer that most people use this argument to masquerade hedonism as a front for wanting allopatric speciation. Rather we should let this happen naturally is already out of the window. Nanorobots and CRISPR cas-9 are already being researched at the University of Tabriz, the University of Hashtrood, Polytechnique Montréal, the Santa Fe Institute, as well as the Max Planck Institute for biological cybernetics in Germany. Frankly, I infer there will be a resistance to this technology. If people think this will interfere with their pursuit of pleasure and sensual self-indulgence all you have to do is read a chapter in Sun Tzu Art of War to see that they will fight very hard. I infer these people will be modern "neo-luddites" if you will. I can't say if I would make it a sociological requirement, but it's obvious that there may be a conflict between people who are rational and people who are hedonistic but all I can say is that I will do anything in my power to support this research.
Chavis von Bradford thanks for taking the time to answer him so succinctly. I may disagree with you, but damn, I respect you. Thanks for the links and the new reading material. ETA: a comma
@@ChavisvonBradfordscience Thank you for your reply and taking my questions seriously, despite what I now see was a silly and facetious reference to star trek. I was attempting to offer a culturally relevant synopsis of my overall point for anyone else reading who might have similar questions to mine, thus sparing them (and you) another lengthy post (didn’t work lol). I'm also currently on my millionth view of episode 2, season 6 of Star Trek Next Generation so it's obvious how this bled into my comment. I echo hotlunch4011 in thanking you for a decent, serious, educational response; I'm a little less jaded this evening. I'm afraid I am not a scientist and so my contribution to this discussion is limited to hypothetical scenarios, and my ability to critically read the papers you have referenced is VERY limited. Regardless, I think I understand your overall view, and based on the tone of your writing I will assume you're acting in good faith and that you actually do understand the papers you're referencing, which inform your views in this discussion; it sure sounds like it. Hopefully interacting with me isn't too frustrating for you. Since you say you have encountered more people who are worried about these issues as I am, perhaps this can be an exercise for you in "CRISPR" advocacy, haha! When you said “…evolutionary optimization algorithms and more iterations and rigorous protocols when it comes to analyzing how these things could adversely affect human beings…” that’s basically what I was calling ethics, and pointing out as conspicuously absent from your first post. I work in mental health and when I see a young person in their prime, who is utterly catatonic, it’s obvious that they are not healthy. I don’t have fMRI data for such patients, but in their charts their diagnosis given to them by psychiatric doctors describe severe depression with no physical indications (tumors, scar tissue, blood clots, concussion etc.), and their personal histories report ‘trauma’ of the type I think you would describe as socially constructed and lacking in the ability to physically influence the molecules that form the person’s brain, e.g. the death of a parent, or the loss of a job. Yet they literally lie in bed staring at the ceiling and lacking in the involuntary attraction of the eye to movement. Lights are on and nobody’s home, and the best the fMRI can do is confirm that there is no activity where there should be, at least regarding cognitive functions and functioning in areas associated with attention, focus, language, memory etc... Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t an fMRI show activity in the brain in response to stimulus? And nothing else? It is US that infers that this activity corresponds in a coherent way with the patient’s response to the stimulus. To use a made up example that you may easily refute: if we fMRI a person looking at a picture of their mother, we say the lighting up areas indicating activity, MUST indicate the physical mechanism of memories, recognition, love, sorrow, attachment, semantic meaning and anything else the patient is reporting. Then we correspond that data with what we know about the brain such as this particular area is specifically where memories are retrieved, and thus infer that this is where the patient is remembering the face of his mother, but not this lit up area which is for something else... Thus through a process of trial and error we eliminate possibilities in an attempt to increase the validity of such studies. It’s like trying to develop flight for the first time by watching hundreds of videos of planes in flight, with no understanding of lift and air resistance, jet engines and fuel or even that the thing needs retractable wheels that MUST be up during flight, but MUST be down during takeoff and landing... Or isn’t it? As for creative arts, you’re correct, many geniuses enjoyed creating art and indeed the very best music in all history was produced by people who were arguably geniuses, but we can’t assume that Beethoven FELT more than normal people. Thus genius seems to amplify one’s abilities, but it’s up to some other factor(s) as to what makes the genius focus their intelligence on producing music rather than physics equations or incredible new engineering feats. Therefor perhaps ‘genius’ should be characterized as an increase in overall brain efficiency. So perhaps there is no trade off, and in fact a CRISPR modified person will just be significantly better and faster and have more potential at whatever they were going to do anyway. IS that what you were getting at, and can you categorically state that this is what CRISPR modification and nanobots will or even can achieve? I’m not suggesting that a person needs empathy to help a person out, I’m suggesting they might need empathy to realize when a person needs help in the first place… You state that, “Empathy, sadism and sadomasochism are based on personal pain, pleasure, reward and punishment rather than the scientific method, inferences or evolutionary optimization algorithms.” I would suggest that it goes even further to say that empathy might even obscure one’s ability to invoke the scientific method or any other form of rational thought and decision making. You've suggested as much yourself. But what does empathy give us, what does it add, why did it evolve in the first place? I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned mirror neurons yet by the way. I’m interested to know why you don’t think they’re pertinent to this discussion, and acknowledge that it is probably my ignorance that makes me think it would be important. Please enlighten me. There is more I wish to say and much more I wish to ask, but this is too long a post already, so I’ll leave it there for now... :) EDIT: Fixing formatting issues
Having listened to this I must say that (politics aside) this is a low-tier guest. Not the worst this podcast has seen though. Shallow incomplete arguments, not thought provoking at all. He describes rather than gives explanations and reasons.
Political parties are a large part of our issue. As stated, whether people acknowledge it or not, tribalism often kicks in and people pick sides, without putting much thought into the alignment. George Washington knew of the problems that parties would cause, hence, he did not belong to one.
It is frustrating that they talk about polarization, but don't talk about the problem of first-past-the-post voting except at the end with the tiny mention of proportional representation. A top two non-partisan primary that uses APPROVAL VOTING to get the top two would do wonders to stop polarization.
Man I was thinking today, about how I'd like to hear Ezra Klein talk about his book. Scary how Mindscape keeps reading my mind every week-and then some ♥️♥️ Omg Pandagon! This is going to be good....
Especially when the guest talking about politics is as horrible as Ezra. He really is one of the most dishonest actors in the scene. Just watch one of the dozen videos exposing his explicit lying and BS. This will be the first Mind Scape that I skip.
The MDM makes my world go around Sir. Thank you by the way for the informative and inspiring topic of the episode. Music-Dance-Math (MDM) have very much to do with one another. Mind Sir please, that the less subject matter coincides with the quantum theory and with the integral and deferential calculus the bigger number of commentators and the lesser number of coherent comments and rants are to be found all over the comment section. Go figure !!! Cheers to you Sir ! As usual ! Come on... get happy !!!
@Ryndika There was a quite telling episode of Sam Harris' podcast with Ezra Klein.. I guess there's a big overlap of Sean's and Sam's fans ;) Following my principles I won't hit the dislike button of any video I didn't watch but tbh I had more than enough of Klein and will skip this one. Not judging Sean for talking with him though, that would be silly.
Sam Harris is a joke of a philosopher. I remember watching a TED talk in which he claimed he could come up with an objective morality based on science, only to then do nothing of the sort. And he's a pretty nasty Islamophobe
@@Emanresu56 If the person who started that comment chain deletes their first comment then all other comments get deleted as well. I believe that is what happened.
@@Emanresu56 Yeah that comment thread got deleted for some reason. In response to your last message: I do think that torture and invasion are terrible awful things, and of course we shouldn't condone them. I do actually think though that outright dismissing people that disagree is a pretty poor idea, it's always better to try and talk and understand points of view, someone who has a terrible opinion might also have an excellent one if we were to actually listen. Take the good with the bad. This is a bit like the whole no-platforming thing, and general dimissal of ideas and people. It's exactly part of what is causing so much polarization. It's not going to help progress whatsoever, only increase division. The only instance 'no-platforming' might be acceptable is when letting someone speak will cause actual immediate harm, which is a pretty rare situation, and I don't think this youtube podcast is going to do that. The existence of this discussion is not an advocation of the aformentioned awfulness.
I think there are two missing elements in this discussion: 1) the fact that the economy has gotten si violent that people are literarily dying from its consequences. That means people are looking not for a leader but for a savior and the more weird the candidate the more likely he could be a hero. 2) the distance between an individual and the place where decisions are made that impact him (both politically and in the work environment) has become very large. That fosters desperation and hopelessness and reckless behavior. That human attribute of recklessness becomes an identity that can be played on.
@Oners82 The point of the video is that the public should criticize intellectually dishonest actors like Ezra? My dislike of Klein has nothing to do with his ideology. My and many people's issue with Klein is that he misrepresents his opponents views. He's also been exposed as a liar many times over. WTF are you even talking about? You prove again and again how dumb you are everytime you leave a dumb comment like this.
@@HotLunch4011 I've listened to hours and hours of Ezras BS. Why would you assume that I don't know what he has to say about identity politics. Ezra has been exposed as a habitual liar and ideological opportunist. I have absolutely no problem listening to opposing views, this is in fact the reason that I listen to these podcasts. I have no time or interest in wasting hours on people who are not engaging in honest discourse.
Ezra Klein is clearly one those reporters that doesn't have a clue what is happening in world so he makes up absurd analyses based on convoluted and confused opinions. This interview was impenetrable and without substance. Not worthy of being on Mindscape. Klein just doesn't know what he talking about.
Hey Sean. Would it be conceivable for you to have Jordan Peterson on the podcast? I think that would spark an elucidating discourse from psychology to philosophy and politics.
@@roberthodgins6584 that is indeed unfortunate. Jordan Peterson is one of the most influential thinkers of our time and it's a shame that the polarized political climate has created a dividing chasm between our greatest intellectual giants instead of unabridged unity.
Well, it's true that Peterson is influential. "Thinker", however... that's very debatable. All I've seen from him is plain old reactionary conservatism dressed up as intellectualism. Plus, he denies humans are influencing global warming.
I can't help but notice that some people have commented on this particular podcast in a negative way and also admitted that they didn't bother listening to it? I'm not an Ezra Klein fan or Vox fan, but this was an interesting and honest conversation. Also, in this conversation Ezra was charitable in his perspectives of other people who hold different political views.
let me take a gues... the Rogan/Bernie "controversy" poured more fuel into that fire. Vox (among others) is just blatantly lying about Rogan and completely misrepresenting his views and morality. It's disgusting! Holding different political views is one thing, lying about and smearing others is just fucked up nonsense lots of people don't want to spend time with anymore. Is everything Ezra Klein says related to that category of nonsense? Of course not, but there are many people out there who have equally or much more interesting thoughts and they don't see the need to misrepresent the views of those they don't agree with. If I have the chance to, instead, listen to Steven Pinker for example, with whom I disagree on some issues, I'd much rather do that because as a whole he seems to be a guy I could hang out and have a good time with. Ezra Klein? Much less likely... and I'm very much to the left but the way these "beyond" left folks want to police everything and shut down / destroy anyone who has ever, in their entire life, said a "wrong" word is utterly stupid and does nothing but bolster "beyond" right morons like Trump, who, in essence, stand very much for the same kind of authoritarian rule and grandstanding.
@@romanmanner great, I shall give it a shot then. Thanks for letting me know.
Many of these same individuals would, I'm guessing, normally be very strongly opposed to the practice of deplatforming.
@@patrickbarnes9874 Ezra doesn't argue against polarization he kind of advocates for how to improve the government so that it can function better under a polarized populace.
Politics is hard to talk about because it is so intertwined with our identity and when that is challenged, it challenges your culture, your upbringing, your belief system. Of course, there is so much cognitive dissonance and affirmation bias involved. And it certainly makes sense that our American political system tends to effective polarization. I don't think this analysis was off base and I don't understand the criticism for it. It wasn't a deep dive but it was a thoughtful survey of the topic. It's a podcast.
I have never heard of Klein so that may have something to do with it, less bias and background information. Sometimes it's better not to have a dog in the fight.
A good episode. It's obvious that many people who feel negatively about this and downvote the episode didn't even listen to it.
I agree with a lot of what Ezra says, but since he smeared Sam Harris so disingenuously I don't trust or like him, at all.
I don't consider it smearing (as far as I remember). I think it was mostly fair criticism, with a few bad takes here and there. Sam isn't a saint either. He can be hard-headed who doesn't listen to criticism or opposing views very well. That's what happened with his discussion with Ezra when he went on full defence even though Ezra had some valid points.
@@eliasE989 Ezra lauded serious accusations against Sam that he repeatedly failed to substantiate, hence why so many people found him to be disingenuous and reprehensible.
Sam, like any other human being, isn't a saint, so what??? How is that relevant to Ezra blatantly slandering and posting libel about the dude? For what it's worth, Sean isn't a saint either, who truly is?
@@eliasE989 "I think it was mostly fair criticism, with a few bad takes here and there" - yeah like when Klein asked Sam Harris about racial and gender composition of his podcast guests - implying that Harris has racist/misogynistic bias? In a way that one question distilled the essence of that useless discussion.
@@mrnarason
Hard to summarize.
You still may find their talk around, here, on YT.
Although it's tough to hear through the entire thing.
I listen to ALL of your podcasts Sean Carroll.
However, I'm curious as to why most scientists talk about humans in a very anthropocentric way. Most people analyze humans in a way that makes it seem as though humans are separate from the rest of our physical, chemical, biological and astronomical existence.
I'm curious if Anastasia E. Rigney of the University of Texas at Austin or Jonas T. Kaplan of the Dana and David Dornsife Cognitive Neuroimaging Center at the University of Southern California could be invited to your podcasts?
These neuroscientists have analyzed neuropolitics based off of functional magnetic resonance imaging in contrast to analyzing things purely based off of human interactions.
At 50:18 there is actually a scientific source to back up this claim:
Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidence
Jonas T. Kaplan, Sarah I. Gimbel, and Sam Harris
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5180221/
There are other scientific studies that analyzes people's brain's with fMRI data:
The functional role of ventral anterior cingulate cortex in social evaluation: disentangling valence from subjectively rewarding opportunities
Anastasia E Rigney, Jessica E Koski, and Jennifer S Beer
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5755235/
Nonpolitical Images Evoke Neural Predictors of Political Ideology
Woo-Young Ahn, Kenneth T. Kishida, [...], and P. Read Montague
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245707/
Neural Representations of Belief Concepts: A Representational Similarity Approach to Social Semantics
Anna Leshinskaya, Juan Manuel Contreras, [...], and Jason P. Mitchell
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5939197/
Politics on the Brain: An fMRI Investigation
Kristine M. Knutson, Jacqueline N. Wood, [...], and Jordan Grafman
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828689/
Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans
Darren Schreiber, Greg Fonzo, [...], and Martin P. Paulus
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052970
Based on this fMRI and neuroanatomical data, one can infer that liberals, conservatives, libertarians and socialists are behaving and voting based on personal pain, pleasure, reward and punishment in contrast to
a) systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
b) many-valued logic, Dempster-Shafer theory, or probability theory with rules for inference such as Bayes' rule.
Perhaps there can be a discussion on how CRISPR CAS-9 and Nanorobots could optimize people's synapses, neurons, neurotransmitters, dendrites, axona, single nucleotide polymorphisms and alleles and how this could affect politics.
There are scientific already researching this:
Editing the Central Nervous System Through CRISPR/Cas9 Systems
Agustin Cota-Coronado, Néstor Fabián Díaz-Martínez, [...], and N. Emmanuel Díaz-Martínez
www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnmol.2019.00110/full
Integration of Nanobots Into Neural Circuits As a Future Therapy for Treating Neurodegenerative Disorders
Arthur Saniotis, Maciej Henneberg, and Abdul-Rahman Sawalma
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5872519/
I haven't listened to this podcast yet, so forgive me if I'm ignorant regarding your comment as it relates to this episode, but I was wondering a few things regarding what you've said.
Do you realize that you're exploring turning human beings into Vulcans of Star trek fame? It's fascinating sure, and certainly worth discussing, alongside a vigorous and objective discussion of the ethics and the dangers, facets I find conspicuously missing from your considerations. I'm not accusing you, I understand the need to ask your question in a narrowly focused way (which unavoidably is still so very broad), and I'm therefore assuming that you haven't considered or are not concerned with these aspects of the topic. So please consider this comment as more of an "interesting, please say more" statement.
You said "...on how CRISPR CAS-9 and Nanorobots could optimize people's synapses, neurons, neurotransmitters, dendrites, axona, single nucleotide polymorphisms and alleles and how this could affect politics." Are you only concerned with that aspect of life (i.e politics), or have you considered the implications of this editing for music, art, literature... creativity, empathy, compassion? What are the implications of decisions made for millions/billions of people based solely on logical extrapolation and objective truth? What would this do to our relationships? The hypothetical gains are enchanting, but have you considered the hypothetical price? Even just to yourself? How would you feel about your mother, if your brain were so altered? (I understand that such alterations would only affect offspring, so no one human being would ever experience a pre and then a post alteration life, but just try to imagine you could wake up tomorrow, modified in the way you suggest.) Further, have you considered that faulty, blinding human passions are the drivers of discovery? As Einstein was finalizing his theory, was he elated, burning with thoughts of the implications to his life? What role did his ego play in moving him forward? Did Galileo look at the stars with yearning wonder, or did he only think about them in if/then terms? When Archimedes was run through by a Roman soldier, was it passion or logic that drove him to defy the soldier in favor of continued mathematical problem solving? Can there be such a thing as a dispassionate genius, whether occurring naturally or through human scientific intervention?
I think the anthropocentrism you're identifying is a legacy from the "God created me uniquely in the universe and gave the earth to me for my use" paradigm that has universally dominated civilization since the first words were spoken. On such a timescale, the enlightenment (arguably the opposite of this paradigm and the natural road towards the humans you're envisioning) is a tiny blip. Shouldn't we give it a chance to occur naturally? To what end? How do we decide?
Can you name any one person who you would trust to edit themselves in a responsible and wise way that would benefit all society and not just the individual? If so can you name twenty, a thousand? What has disqualified the remaining billions? If the editing technology could make those remaining billions wise and responsible, would you make it a societal requirement?
I'm obviously more sci-fi than contemporary knowledge here, and I don't have citations to deep explorations of my concerns, nevertheless I'm sure you can see that these are important questions... how might you go about answering them, even in the most scant and/or hypothetical way?
@@ZippyLeroux I don't think the implications of what I'm saying can be seriously discussed if we're going to start the conversation off with comparing the inevitability of using CRISPR cas-9 and nanorobots to optimize the brain with fictional characters from a T.V. show. And I watch Star Trek The Next Generation and the new Picard series but what I'm talking about is real life.
Discussing the dangers of nanorobots and CRISPR cas-9 is needed. Scientists cannot be as hasty as Dr. He Jiankui. There must be evolutionary optimization algorithms and more iterations and rigorous protocols when it comes to analyzing how these things could adversely affect human beings. But when I say adversely, I'm talking something that would make then less healthy.
However, questioning the 'ethics' of nanorobots and CRISPR cas-9 is anthropocentric. Bacteria, Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, Mammals, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalis and denisovans We're not the Pinnacle of evolutionary biology when it comes to intelligence so it's clear to see that homo sapiens will to be either. The age of homo cyberneticus has been here since Yuri Gagarin and Alan Shepard went into space. If you want to be technical, they were cyborgs.
CRISPR cas-9 and nanorobots can ENHANCE creativity in the middle cingulate cortex/insula cortex, superior temporal gyrus/angular gyrus, anterior cingulate cortex/caudate nucleus, culmen/declive, thalamus, left fusiform gyrus, and right middle and inferior frontal gyri.
String theorist Clifford Victor Johnson (who was on one of Sean Carroll podcasts) plays the trumpet, rocket scientist Wernher von Braun took cello lessons from composer Paul Hindemith and physicist Albert Einstein played the violin. I too compose music. I infer that things from the parameterizations in twelve-tone technique to the cutoff frequency in synthesizes helped me understand certain scientific concepts more.
It's obvious that creativity is needed when it comes to how scientists think about science itself.
But when it comes to empathy and compassion I suggest you listen to episode 34 of Sean Carroll podcast with Paul Bloom. I'm not so sure if these are things that we want to necessarily keep. Empathy can be weaponized.
The Oxford dictionary states that empathy is: "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another." Nevertheless, just because you can 'understand' and share the feelings of another person, (which I also doubt one can truly do) doesn't mean that you will act upon those feelings rationally.
One also has to ask why does one have to have empathy to help a person out?
Scientists Carla L. Harenski, David M. Thornton, and Kent A. Kiehl have done fMRI studies on the Increased fronto-temporal activation during pain observation in sexual sadism and scientists
Siyang Luo, Yiyi Zhu, and Qianting Kong have done fMRI studies on the oxytocinergic system modulates sadistic context-dependent empathy in humans. Empathy, sadism and sadomasochism are based on personal pain, pleasure, reward and punishment rather than the scientific method, inferences or evolutionary optimization algorithms.
My wife and I discuss nanorobots, nanomachines, molecular motors and CRISPR cas-9 every 2 days are so.
Even though we are going to college to pursue Quantum Cosmology, Experimental Physics and Computational physics, we often discuss interdisciplinary ways on how we could contribute to nanorobotics and genetic engineering. So yes, we are very well aware of the implications.
Honestly, asking me how I 'feel' about this is anthropocentric. I can only tell you what I infer, know or don't know. As for my mother, she was a bit skeptical but she believes the pros outweigh the cons.
However, I will be willing to tell you that most people I talk to about this don't like it. But I do want to discuss why they don't like it. Most of them masquerade hedonism as free-will, creativity and empathy. I infer that they are not truly concerned about a deep philosophical discussion about agency, free-will or creativity. Most of their rebuttals are solely on the basis of their pursuit of pleasure and sensual self-indulgence.
If I woke up tomorrow and people were doing things based off of rational thought instead of hedonism, pain, pleasure, reward and personal punishment I don't think I would feel any kind of resistance towards it.
As for Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei and Archimedes I'm going to refer to a paper named: "Toward a Neurobiological Basis for Understanding Learning in University Modeling Instruction Physics Courses by Eric Brewe, Jessica E. Bartley, Michael C. Riedel et. al."
The students in this fMRI study exhibited physics reasoning-related brain activity at the pre-instruction time point in four general brain areas, the prefrontal cortex, the parietal cortex, the temporal lobes, and the right cerebellum More specifically, in the prefrontal cortex (PFC), activation peaks were observed in the left superior frontal gyrus (SFG), dorsomedial PFC (dmPFC), bilateral dorsolateral PFC (dlPFC), inferior frontal gyri (IFG), and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). Within the posterior parietal cortex, brain activity was observed bilaterally in the supramarginal gyri, intraparietal sulcus (IPS), and angular gryi (AG). Large bilateral clusters of activation during physics reasoning were also observed in middle temporal (MT) and medial superior temporal (MST) areas. These same patterns of task-related brain activity from the pre-instruction stage were also observed when performing a similar assessment at the post-instruction stage.
I would put the function of each one of these neuroanatomical parts of the brain but I want you to look this up for yourself. Literally type in these different parts of the brain and look up their function. This is way deeper than just passion, emotion or hedonism.
I find that during discussions like this people like to talk about the scientists instead of the science.
Evolving naturally is based off of a term named "allopatric speciation". However, I infer that most people use this argument to masquerade hedonism as a front for wanting allopatric speciation.
Rather we should let this happen naturally is already out of the window. Nanorobots and CRISPR cas-9 are already being researched at the University of Tabriz, the University of Hashtrood, Polytechnique Montréal, the Santa Fe Institute, as well as the Max Planck Institute for biological cybernetics in Germany.
Frankly, I infer there will be a resistance to this technology. If people think this will interfere with their pursuit of pleasure and sensual self-indulgence all you have to do is read a chapter in Sun Tzu Art of War to see that they will fight very hard. I infer these people will be modern "neo-luddites" if you will.
I can't say if I would make it a sociological requirement, but it's obvious that there may be a conflict between people who are rational and people who are hedonistic but all I can say is that I will do anything in my power to support this research.
Chavis von Bradford thanks for taking the time to answer him so succinctly.
I may disagree with you, but damn, I respect you. Thanks for the links and the new reading material.
ETA: a comma
@@ChavisvonBradfordscience Thank you for your reply and taking my questions seriously, despite what I now see was a silly and facetious reference to star trek. I was attempting to offer a culturally relevant synopsis of my overall point for anyone else reading who might have similar questions to mine, thus sparing them (and you) another lengthy post (didn’t work lol). I'm also currently on my millionth view of episode 2, season 6 of Star Trek Next Generation so it's obvious how this bled into my comment. I echo hotlunch4011 in thanking you for a decent, serious, educational response; I'm a little less jaded this evening.
I'm afraid I am not a scientist and so my contribution to this discussion is limited to hypothetical scenarios, and
my ability to critically read the papers you have referenced is VERY limited. Regardless, I think I understand your overall view, and based on the tone of your writing I will assume you're acting in good faith and that you actually do understand the papers you're referencing, which inform your views in this discussion; it sure sounds like it. Hopefully interacting with me isn't too frustrating for you. Since you say you have encountered more people who are worried about these issues as I am, perhaps this can be an exercise for you in "CRISPR" advocacy, haha!
When you said “…evolutionary optimization algorithms and more iterations and rigorous protocols when it comes to analyzing how these things could adversely affect human beings…” that’s basically what I was calling ethics, and pointing out as conspicuously absent from your first post.
I work in mental health and when I see a young person in their prime, who is utterly catatonic, it’s obvious that they are not healthy. I don’t have fMRI data for such patients, but in their charts their diagnosis given to them by psychiatric doctors describe severe depression with no physical indications (tumors, scar tissue, blood clots, concussion etc.), and their personal histories report ‘trauma’ of the type I think you would describe as socially constructed and lacking in the ability to physically influence the molecules that form the person’s brain, e.g. the death of a parent, or the loss of a job. Yet they literally lie in bed staring at the ceiling and lacking in the involuntary attraction of the eye to movement. Lights are on and nobody’s home, and the best the fMRI can do is confirm that there is no activity where there should be, at least regarding cognitive functions and functioning in areas associated with attention, focus, language, memory etc...
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t an fMRI show activity in the brain in response to stimulus? And nothing else? It is US that infers that this activity corresponds in a coherent way with the patient’s response to the stimulus. To use a made up example that you may easily refute: if we fMRI a person looking at a picture of their mother, we say the lighting up areas indicating activity, MUST indicate the physical mechanism of memories, recognition, love, sorrow, attachment, semantic meaning and anything else the patient is reporting. Then we correspond that data with what we know about the brain such as this particular area is specifically where memories are retrieved, and thus infer that this is where the patient is remembering the face of his mother, but not this lit up area which is for something else... Thus through a process of trial and error we eliminate possibilities in an attempt to increase the validity of such studies. It’s like trying to develop flight for the first time by watching hundreds of videos of planes in flight, with no understanding of lift and air resistance, jet engines and fuel or even that the thing needs retractable wheels that MUST be up during flight, but MUST be down during takeoff and landing... Or isn’t it?
As for creative arts, you’re correct, many geniuses enjoyed creating art and indeed the very best music in all history was produced by people who were arguably geniuses, but we can’t assume that Beethoven FELT more than normal people. Thus genius seems to amplify one’s abilities, but it’s up to some other factor(s) as to what makes the genius focus their intelligence on producing music rather than physics equations or incredible new engineering feats. Therefor perhaps ‘genius’ should be characterized as an increase in overall brain efficiency.
So perhaps there is no trade off, and in fact a CRISPR modified person will just be significantly better and faster and have more potential at whatever they were going to do anyway. IS that what you were getting at, and can you categorically state that this is what CRISPR modification and nanobots will or even can achieve?
I’m not suggesting that a person needs empathy to help a person out, I’m suggesting they might need empathy to realize when a person needs help in the first place…
You state that, “Empathy, sadism and sadomasochism are based on personal pain, pleasure, reward and punishment rather than the scientific method, inferences or evolutionary optimization algorithms.” I would suggest that it goes even further to say that empathy might even obscure one’s ability to invoke the scientific method or any other form of rational thought and decision making. You've suggested as much yourself. But what does empathy give us, what does it add, why did it evolve in the first place? I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned mirror neurons yet by the way. I’m interested to know why you don’t think they’re pertinent to this discussion, and acknowledge that it is probably my ignorance that makes me think it would be important. Please enlighten me.
There is more I wish to say and much more I wish to ask, but this is too long a post already, so I’ll leave it there for now... :)
EDIT: Fixing formatting issues
You might as well write a paper, if you put so much effortb into a. Comment
It's difficult to get the vote out when certain parties close polling stations and restrict access. Also somewhat related, gerrymandering
Having listened to this I must say that (politics aside) this is a low-tier guest. Not the worst this podcast has seen though.
Shallow incomplete arguments, not thought provoking at all. He describes rather than gives explanations and reasons.
Judging a person like this. You must be a real asshole.
Political parties are a large part of our issue. As stated, whether people acknowledge it or not, tribalism often kicks in and people pick sides, without putting much thought into the alignment.
George Washington knew of the problems that parties would cause, hence, he did not belong to one.
Congratulations Sean, on your first hilarious comments section. I like how it backs up a lot of what he said. Good talk.
It is frustrating that they talk about polarization, but don't talk about the problem of first-past-the-post voting except at the end with the tiny mention of proportional representation. A top two non-partisan primary that uses APPROVAL VOTING to get the top two would do wonders to stop polarization.
Man I was thinking today, about how I'd like to hear Ezra Klein talk about his book. Scary how Mindscape keeps reading my mind every week-and then some ♥️♥️
Omg Pandagon! This is going to be good....
Do people come to this podcast for politics? Science discussion is so much more enlightening...
Especially when the guest talking about politics is as horrible as Ezra. He really is one of the most dishonest actors in the scene. Just watch one of the dozen videos exposing his explicit lying and BS. This will be the first Mind Scape that I skip.
Thank you!
How I start my Mondays
hehe
The MDM makes my world go around Sir. Thank you by the way for the informative and inspiring topic of the episode.
Music-Dance-Math (MDM) have very much to do with one another.
Mind Sir please, that the less subject matter coincides with the quantum theory and with the integral and deferential calculus the bigger number of commentators and the lesser number of coherent comments and rants are to be found all over the comment section. Go figure !!!
Cheers to you Sir ! As usual ! Come on... get happy !!!
Two of my three favourite podcast hosts (the other being Lex Fridman). What a treat!
"The elites seem to be leading the charge" on polarization, says Ezra....wow, no kidding. This pot sure is astute about all the kettles.
The comments are polarized. Ha. I'm a social psychologist, and ya, the science backs up Mr Klein.
I'm out of the loop. Why's there so many dislikes?
@Ryndika
There was a quite telling episode of Sam Harris' podcast with Ezra Klein.. I guess there's a big overlap of Sean's and Sam's fans ;)
Following my principles I won't hit the dislike button of any video I didn't watch but tbh I had more than enough of Klein and will skip this one. Not judging Sean for talking with him though, that would be silly.
Sam Harris fans get triggered easily.
Sam Harris is a joke of a philosopher. I remember watching a TED talk in which he claimed he could come up with an objective morality based on science, only to then do nothing of the sort. And he's a pretty nasty Islamophobe
Ezra Klein on Polarization? A bit like interviewing Trump on lying. I'll pass on this one.
Some comments criticizing this episode were removed.
@@elontusk610 Even my comments were deleted. I didn't delete them.
@@Emanresu56 If the person who started that comment chain deletes their first comment then all other comments get deleted as well. I believe that is what happened.
@@d-5037 Fair enough, I guess there's no way to know who deleted what.
@@Emanresu56 Yeah that comment thread got deleted for some reason. In response to your last message: I do think that torture and invasion are terrible awful things, and of course we shouldn't condone them. I do actually think though that outright dismissing people that disagree is a pretty poor idea, it's always better to try and talk and understand points of view, someone who has a terrible opinion might also have an excellent one if we were to actually listen. Take the good with the bad.
This is a bit like the whole no-platforming thing, and general dimissal of ideas and people. It's exactly part of what is causing so much polarization. It's not going to help progress whatsoever, only increase division. The only instance 'no-platforming' might be acceptable is when letting someone speak will cause actual immediate harm, which is a pretty rare situation, and I don't think this youtube podcast is going to do that. The existence of this discussion is not an advocation of the aformentioned awfulness.
I think there are two missing elements in this discussion:
1) the fact that the economy has gotten si violent that people are literarily dying from its consequences. That means people are looking not for a leader but for a savior and the more weird the candidate the more likely he could be a hero.
2) the distance between an individual and the place where decisions are made that impact him (both politically and in the work environment) has become very large. That fosters desperation and hopelessness and reckless behavior. That human attribute of recklessness becomes an identity that can be played on.
Too bad you did not tell us about the sour grapes again, or many worlds. I could listen to those stories for years 👍
Ezra Klein? Seriously? I'll be skipping this episode. I'm kind of disappointed in Sean.
Oners82 what do you mean, “you people “?
Hey. Maybe if you listen, you might learn something?
@Oners82
The point of the video is that the public should criticize intellectually dishonest actors like Ezra? My dislike of Klein has nothing to do with his ideology. My and many people's issue with Klein is that he misrepresents his opponents views. He's also been exposed as a liar many times over.
WTF are you even talking about? You prove again and again how dumb you are everytime you leave a dumb comment like this.
@@HotLunch4011
I've listened to hours and hours of Ezras BS. Why would you assume that I don't know what he has to say about identity politics. Ezra has been exposed as a habitual liar and ideological opportunist. I have absolutely no problem listening to opposing views, this is in fact the reason that I listen to these podcasts. I have no time or interest in wasting hours on people who are not engaging in honest discourse.
@@acetate909 Haven't you sufficiently stroked your ego already? At some point can't you just... you know... fuck off?
David Deutsch please! :)
Ezra Klein is clearly one those reporters that doesn't have a clue what is happening in world so he makes up absurd analyses based on convoluted and confused opinions. This interview was impenetrable and without substance. Not worthy of being on Mindscape. Klein just doesn't know what he talking about.
And you do 😂?
@@rod6189 Sure.
Enjoyed
Right moved right more than the left has moved left!? What? Has this guy looked at ANY data on that subject? Ridiculous.
You are an idiot dude 😂
I’d enjoy a JRE podcast with Ezra Klein
Cool
Hey Sean. Would it be conceivable for you to have Jordan Peterson on the podcast? I think that would spark an elucidating discourse from psychology to philosophy and politics.
@@roberthodgins6584 that is indeed unfortunate. Jordan Peterson is one of the most influential thinkers of our time and it's a shame that the polarized political climate has created a dividing chasm between our greatest intellectual giants instead of unabridged unity.
@@Czmlol rofl
@@roberthodgins6584 rofl you morons
Well, it's true that Peterson is influential. "Thinker", however... that's very debatable. All I've seen from him is plain old reactionary conservatism dressed up as intellectualism. Plus, he denies humans are influencing global warming.
I normally avoid Vox, but listening to this guy talk actually makes me want to go back and read their old content.
i love physics,i love you
"Inherent Bias" much?? Jeez....come-on
Famous Scientists like Newton, Watson, Darwin, etc , we’re conservatives! Just saying!