Steven Pinker: the dangers of “pseudo intellectual bullsh*t”
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 тра 2024
- Part 2 here: • Steven Pinker: Why are...
Are human beings “probability blind”? How can we best explain exponential growth - does it involve vampires? And how can we best avoid “pseudo-intellectual bullsh*t?”
In the twenty-first century, humanity is reaching new heights of scientific understanding - and at the same time appears to be losing its mind. How can a species that discovered vaccines for Covid-19 in less than a year produce so much fake news, quack cures and conspiracy theorizing? Live from London, in conversation with Marcus du Sautoy, Professor Steven Pinker explores why - in part 1 of this exclusive How To Academy conversation.
Steven Pinker is an experimental cognitive scientist. Currently Johnstone Professor of Psychology at Harvard, he has also taught at Stanford and MIT. He has won many prizes for his research, teaching, and his eleven books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, and Enlightenment Now. His videos for Big Think (Linguistics and the brain), RSA (Language and human nature), TED (Is the world getting better or worse?), human nature, the surprising decline in violence), Unbelievable? (Debating God), The Royal Institution (Linguistics, Style and Writing), How To Academy Mindset (With Stephen Fry), The Rubin Report (Sex differences, human nature and identity politics), World Science Festival (Mind Your Language), Jordan Peterson (Enlightenment and the righteous mind), Big think (The great free will debate), AprendemosJuntos (El reto de ser racionales), Ram Talks (La Naturaleza Humana), Russell Howard, Reason TV, PhilosophyInsights and UnHerd, have garnered millions of views.
Marcus du Sautoy is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of the Royal Society. In 2008 he was appointed to the university’s prestigious professorship as the Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, a post previously held by Richard Dawkins. His videos with Numberphile (Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, Music on a Clear Möbius Strip, Shortcuts), TED-Ed (The paradox at the heart of mathematics), World Science Festival (The Illusion of Certainty: Risk, Probability and Chance), The Royal Institution (What We Cannot Know, Constructor Theory), The Guardian (Painted with numbers), and Ted (Symmetry, reality’s riddle), have amassed millions of views.
See more of Steven Pinker here: ua-cam.com/play/PLFIigLLitqDk_Ly6HhbIKcJZr4TooeoSX.html
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
@@TheWorldTeacher This is ideological rhetorics disguised as science/ scientific reasoning, a scam.
@@archaic9525:
“Truthful words are not beautiful.
Beautiful words are not truthful.
Wise men do not argue.
Those who argue are not wise.”
Tao Te Ching 81
@@TheWorldTeacher never had any pretense to define myself a wise one. You do not turn up wise just because you read a bunch of 'wize' books a couple of decades along. And wise anyway does not mean to have definitive opinions on personal or spiritual matters
Anyway, i remember the same tao te ching also says whoever pretends being sure he/she is some fine qualification is deluded. At the very same second the idea pops up in the brain he/she has already lost it.
Space and time are not objectively measurable, as all units of measurement are ultimately infinitely divisible and therefore infinitely imprecise. Objectivity is an ideal worth pursuing, with the understanding that it is objectively impossible to achieve in relative terms.
"How NOT to Audio Engineer a Discussion"
You'd think this channel could afford competent audio engineers who'd know how to place mics, set levels, and make a proper recording.
I couldn’t listen the sound quality was so bad.
You're so special
it is blinding for you.
Lucky you.
Wish the lesser talents
all the best.
You can blow smoke
up your own butt
on your own channel.
Good manners
never go out of style.
@@eijonasson White knight of the system
@@eijonasson And yet the sound quality is still appalling .
If issues are not highlighted , then improvements are not made .
We get what we deserve when we don't complain appropriately .
@@eijonasson file a hurt feelings report
Someone should have adjusted SP's mike!!!!!! The interviewer's speech is so much clearer!
Exactly!
I had to crank my phone vto the maximum volume, and keep it within 12-15 inches of my ears.
I disagree … his pompass naive self is toxic to the human species.. I’m thinking his trip to Epstein island is plain stupid
Mic? Ha ha, I no who cares, its for fun!😁
@@eawil-sunart I think Pinker was just after $$$ for research. Epstein was a sinister f*** who put naive (your word, not mine) or otherwise unsuspecting people in compromising situations in order to extort and leverage influence.
@@eawil-sunart Allah loves you.
I'm an engineer, have studied ethics in university also and have read a lot of Pinker's work, but reading the sub text to this video makes me wonder if you could be any more condescending if you tried harder!? If the authoritarian collectivsm we have seen in the last couple of years since March 2020 doesn't worry you then you're a part of the problem!!
Amen: You got that right
Exactly
Beware of Hebrew Atheists. And beware of Judaism too. Just be aware of everything.
@Стефан Радев Agree, Pinker is a progressive.
I've read Sowell's "Basic Economics" and liked his style so mayby I'll read your suggestion as well:)
He tried inoculate himself with Thomas Sowell. Did not work.
“pseudo intellectual bullsh*t”... Ibram X Kendi, Robin DiAngelo and CRT comes to mind.
Isn't that cute...you used CRT in a sentence without even knowing what it is.
@@alexfloate2420 Sure, whatever. (as if a person could at all glean my level of understanding of CRT from my comment. As many misguided Leftists do, you're making your own assertions to dismiss accurate criticism.) Intellectually lazy.
@@phil5569 Your use belies your ignorance of it. Intellectually deficient!
@@alexfloate2420 Funny, because I didn't "use" it at all, I just referenced it. You think you're smart... not so much, I think. But whatever floats your boat.
@@phil5569 Yes genius, you USED it in a sentence, in a manner that indicates your absolute ignorance. Every comment you make only solidifies that initial impression.
My definition of genius? Hiring a decent sound engineer to set up the mics and testing them beforehand…
Not only the mix, the other part is where to put the P.A. speakers for the audience. Been there, done that, a few dozen times.
Yes, indeed. It is just so important to distinguish between pseudo intellectual bullshit and real intellectual bullshit.
🤣
@@TheWorldTeacher
You laugh but people _literally_ cannot tell if Jordan Peterson is simply an "alt-right racist" or a scientifically minded clinician.
So........youre kind of proving the point, too many cannot tell the difference betweem genuine intelligence and forced opinions.
@@Nah_Bohdi, so says the abject DUNCE who lacks rudimentary grammar, punctuation and spelling skills. 😬
@@TheWorldTeacher You can’t use a comma after the tag and then talk in third person. The comma shows second person. You added that comma to prove something, and ended up proving you don’t actually care about grammar as much as you say you do. Seems oddly pseudo-intellectual…
@@clawmansegele1988, I was not TALKING, Presumptuous Chandāla.
The irony in this video is palpable.
Society is losing it's mind because we fail to contend with ideas we disagree with or believe are flawed, by demonizing them. Intellectuals engaging in anti-intellectualism.
This video is chalked, from start to finish, with exactly this type of toxic reasoning.
@@keithboynton Nothing is so obvious. It requires engaging with the ideas in order to determine whether it is actually bad or not.
@@phantasmagoria1297 Should human infants be left to survive on their own?
You did not watch the entire video and you certainly haven't read the book.
@@Vlasko60 I doubt monkeys do much reasoning and generally do not leave their babies to survive on their own. Instincts?
Except for when they do of course, but neglect is also a thing amongst humans.
I have denied knowledge therefore, in order to make room for faith.
-Kant, the leading modern philosopher
Am I the only one who can't crank the volume on this high enough to make it really audible?
I can hear it with the volume on max, but barely.
..Using a headphone will make it better.
my earphones are clear.
What?
The commercials blew out my eardrums.
16:50 This is deceptive reasoning, when you pose the question: "what is the probability that linda is a bank teller and what's the probability that linda is a bank teller who's active is active in the feminist movement and people tend to give a higher probability to the second even though that violates the conjunction rule namely that the probability of a and b must be less than or equal to the probability of a and b"
The normal interpretation of the question is: "What is the probability that linda is a bank teller THAT IS NOT ACTIVE IN THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT compared to the chance that SHE IS ACTIVE IN THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT" as otherwise the question would be moot, so then saying that it violates the conjunction rule is making a strawman interpretation of the question. Considering that Mr. Pinker gave us the information that Linda is "kind of a social justice warrior and marches in black lives matter protests" and there is a very big overlap between both the groups of people that BLM protests and feminist activists as well as SJW's and feminist activists there is instead a very high likelihood that Linda is a bank teller that IS ACTIVE IN THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT.
Steven Pinker does here the very thing he accuses others of doing, being a pseudo intellectual making logical fallacies to convince others.
We have people organizing their beliefs in a polarized fashion today. If I know someone's position on abortion, for example, I can guess their position on gun control pretty accurately. We all can do this, even though the two positions are not logically connected at all. There's nothing that logically ties these two philosophical beliefs together... except for political affiliation. In the past, Americans tended not to think like this. People had more diverse (and I believe more genuine) sets of beliefs. But we have been corralled into one of two camps, where we face steady pressure from media and social circles to align our opinions on the full set of issues.
I sort of think Pinker was trying to go in this direction, and make a point along these lines, but he said something totally boneheaded instead. Particularly given that Pinker has received a lot of criticism for his fast-and-lose statistics, this interview, and the points he makes throughout, it's is not a good look.
The point is precisely that people typically answer a different question! If A = "Linda is a bank teller" and B = "Linda is a feminist", the question is which is higher, P(B) or P(A and B)?. Your changing it to which is higher, P(B | A) or P(not B | A)? Which is completely different! The thing is we all kinda do the same thing all the time if we're not careful with probabilistic questions.
@@justarandomdude6175 I think it shows that people fall for trick questions, not that people reason badly about probability. The OP is right, people will assume you mean to ask an interesting question about the correlation between being an SJW, a feminist, and a bank teller and so will interpret "bank teller" as a fact you mean to convey about Linda, not an unknown. Why would they think you mean to ask an uninteresting question with a tautological answer? So yes, people bring their a priori knowledge of the world to understand questions, and do it quickly. On the other hand, given the OPs reasonable interpretation, he gets a reasonable probabilistic answer.
@@jefferywestbrook that seems like another way of saying people answer a different question than the one they were asked. You say it's because they find the other question more interesting, but it might also help that the other question is easier to answer.
There's a big problem with our concepts concerning "rationality" and/or "reason". Think about it for a moment, if you care to that is. The reason thinkers like Freud and Jung were so radical and so important is because, they would point out there is no Left/Right or rational Vs irrational "Side" of the brain. We have a "Subconscious", from which all our rational thoughts and all our skills and tools concerning "Logic" and "reason" are born from. Our Emotions, our Passions. Our "Feelings" and "Impulses" are the foundations of ALL our thoughts and expressions. Plato believed his mind, his thoughts were pulled along like a chariot being tugged by two horses. One horse is "Reason" and is disciplined and "True" the other horse is flaky, cock-eyed and somewhat scatty. Emotional. Modern schools of Psychology understand that this is terribly wrong-headed, over simplified and even self deceiving as an approach to understanding ourselves, as thinking, conscious beings. What is "Rational" can be the hardest thing in the world to actually define. Especially since we would need to know each set of circumstances, the priorities, the motives and goals and the tactics, skills and strengths and also the weaknesses, maybe even a million other variables, of every single individual in order to even begin the conversation on how we would consider such a definition.
Take the behaviour of a drug addict for example. Almost everyone in the world, perhaps even other drug addicts, would agree that the drug addict's thoughts and behaviour patterns are completely irrational when observed. But, In fact, you will not find a more pure form of rationality at all, in any other person's actions, than that of the addict. As soon as you factor in the circumstances, motives and goals Etc, of this person who has the matter of acquiring drugs not just as his/her first priority but, until they satisfy their impulses, indeed their only goal is to acquire drugs and not just to feed their cravings but also to stave off a very real physical sickness that the addict wishes to avoid at almost any cost.
The power of exponential growth applied to mathematical modelling created by those pushing agendas or having vested interests could of been cited as an example of ''pseudo intellectual bullsh*t''.
The only dangerous one as far as I can see.
Exactly, and the intellectual's who suppose they're not full of shit think that their approach to any given situation is the right one because their "math" says so.
@@garyhynes if the numbers line up, who is fool enough to ignore the truth? Let's look at supertramps album cover for "Breakfast in America". ( mirror image ) for an example of how a subtle warning is actually one of many tools used to prepare the mind, prime it, if you will, for future events. Then check the numbers for the preparation for the next big one. Build back better. 222.
@@chrisbova9686 Sure, only a fool would ignore to truth, which is why the fool plays perhaps the most important role in whole story.
Science should create a group tasked with going around the world and finding people and literature engaged in pseudoscience, and set flame to all of it. Its of the highest order of intellect to police pseudoscience. May the holy scientific inquisition bring forth a new age of curiosity by destroying pseudoscience heresy.
As soon as I saw the opening credits and a photo of Emma Watson I knew this was gonna be bollocks.
My exact thoughts.
Or you thought that before anyway.
RIGHT! So, you never watched the actual video. You just based your idiotic comment on a photo of some dumb actress? That’s REALLY smart.
@@tykotate9346 Your “exact thoughts” eh? Then you’re another dummy who didn’t watch the video.
Intelligence is one thing, consciousness is another thing entirely.
How so?
@@TheWorldTeacher
Consciousness is fundamental to reality.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the brain somehow conjures up consciousness. But there is growing evidence from all the different forms of science that consciousness comes from outside of the brain.
Think of a car as a metaphor:
The body of the car is the human body. The engine is the heart, kidneys etc- The computer in the engine that controls the engine and the gadgets in the car, like the speedometer, is the brain. Consciousness is the driver. The computer of the car does not magically create the driver does it? No the driver gets inside the car in order to drive it.
@@artconsciousness, in your own words, define “CONSCIOUSNESS”. ☝️🤔☝️
@@artconsciousness, so you ADMIT that you use words of which you have no idea of their meanings, Slave? 😬
@@artconsciousness I will take that as a resounding “YES”, Silly Sinful Slave. 😁
So my possible fallacious reasoning about plane travel vs car travel is that car accidents happen to certain demographics of driver's behaviors and circumstances that you can opt out of, while plane crashes are out of your control completely. So while car crashes are more likely or frequent, I believe I avoid some of the high risk behavior, routes, mechanical conditions, and weather conditions and am safer driving than flying. That is my folk wisdom.
The sound is horrible - the ambient reverberation decreases clarity and the recording volume is too low. The topic of conversation is good; it deserves better sound (and a less click-baity title).
Exponential growth is a hallmark of linear systems and nonlinearities fix the explosion/instability that comes from them. Linear systems also never exist in nature - nonlinearities are ever-present, but we don't have as robust mathematical tools for handling the nonlinear terms in the real underlying phenomena. This clouds our intuition about the longer-term behaviors. This is such a common misunderstanding of real physical systems. Nonlinearities fix the instabilities that emerge from the linear approximations we use to build our intuition. So, in this sense, it is the mathematicians and scientists who get fixated on the short-time, linear behavior that leads to exponential growth. So, we should use more nonlinear model problems to help build more accurate intuition regarding what happens in the longer term.
In discrete systems (like biological systems), the primary nonlinearity comes from the limited number of items to process: the vampire model is a good example as the vampire population is limited by it's food supply. So, the exponential growth is turned off at some point by the exhaustion of food. The same kinds of phenomena happen with chemical reactions, with combustion and with economic resources. So, the nonlinear clipping of exponential growth is something that should go hand-in-hand with descriptions of compounding growth.
Just came here to say exactly this: viral growth is not exponential in the long term. @10:10
Ok, so they do mention this five minutes later. 🙄
there is reticulate description which is used in physics now because catenary (linear description) was not sufficient
Pity about the sound quality. I can't digest the content while I'm struggling to hear the words.
Wealth inequality has become so wide that people have lost all motivation to rationality and disinformation has become so available that it has become information.
What exactly is "pseudo intellectual"? Intellectuals are people who're interested and produce ideas. How do we evaluate an idea as a "pseudo idea"? Even if according to us an idea is shallow and weak, it is still an idea that may sound profound to someone else.
First we need to define what "intellectual" means.
A good definition I heard was this: "An intellectual is a second-hand dealer of ideas. He doesn't produce the ideas himself, but instead peddles them."
With that in mind, we can assume that a pseudo intellectual is someone who appears to be selling second-hand ideas, but once purchased, we find that the ideas sold to us were fakes, not created by the craftsman that was claimed, but counterfeited by the peddler, and of poor quality.
Exactly ...who gets to say something is pseudo...there seems to be a lot of conceit involved
@@EvilMAiq Indeed, the intellectuals, able to generate the type of ideas (and IDEALS) that would eventually become the very essence of our worldview are, by their very nature, few and far between. The overwhelming majority of the intellectual and academic strata (something like 99% of them, I imagine) are concerned with teaching, perpetuating, interpreting, injecting into the public discourse, etc. notions conceptualised by others. But does this mean that we are being offered "second-hand ideas"?
Consider Immanuel Kant, for example. How many people would have benefited from this key philosopher's brilliance and depth if it wasn't for the proverbial ARMY of Kantian scholars and interpreters, capable of articulating his barely digestible, yet ABSOLUTELY CONSTITUTIONAL ethical concepts? Not many, I imagine.
Then again, Kant's intellectual constructs are hardly the most turgid ones. Consider the fundamental accomplishments of philosophers like Martin Heidegger, or Hans-Georg Gadamer, Edmund Husserl, etc., etc. They would have remained totally undecipherable for hundreds of millions of people, if not for the tireless labours of an entire cohort of expounders, able to exegete these epochal thinkers' works in ways that make sense even for philosophically illiterate readers. So, is this "fake"? Is this "pseudo"? Is this worthless and hollow?
P.S. Happy New Year, bruh! 😎
I don't know where you live, but wherever it is, I hope the cretins in power aren't as tyrannical as the ones in EU.
@@brendancronin3796 Indeed. Conceit and all kinds of hidden agendas...
P.S. And Happy New Year!😃
Be healthy! Be inspired and happy!
@@stanislavstoimenov1729 Yeah, I don't think Pinker is talking about Kant.
Pinker tries to tie things up in life too neatly, life isn’t that neat.
It's the opposite: life isn't that neat, that's why we need Pinker to help us to tie things up neatly.
@@Coco45ize but he doesnr, that’s the problem.
@@sspbrazil I think that guy was saying reality is too complex for us, so we need a false but simple belief system.
@@chrisbova9686 you can’t tidy up the world with neat little academic statistics, there are far too many variables that fall outside of those statistics and that’s the problem with Pinker.
@@sspbrazil yeah, I'm one of them so I can understand.
A real "kettle calling the pot black" moment.
beautiful analogy lol
Translation: "He's talking about me and I don't like it". Please show with evidence anything Pinker has wrong.
Tempted to download this and fix the sound. Was there seriously no sound check?
Teen rockers in the '60s had better sound. They could stop in the middle of a song, fix the problem and get back to playing.
The opening of the video has a bunch of them THO LOL!!!
As a pseudo intellectual, I had to watch this. Too bad it's inaudible.
😆 I’m laughing with you
...if ted nugent went out as jordan peterson for halloween
🤣
I like the comment at around 18 minutes regarding availability bias. Why don’t the smart folk like Steven use nuclear power and deaths from it as a really powerful example.. Everyone who is engaged with the debate regarding the continued use of nuclear power usually quotes Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island as an argument to shut down further discussion.
Every rational academic in the energy research business should lead with this idea. They don’t. It makes me think they are blind sighted by their own biases. Can someone explain why I am getting this wrong. Genuinely I ask this in good faith
I'll give it a try! Preface: I'm not a rabid anti-nuclear activist, just interested in energy issues.
I think there are at least 3 issues with nuclear power safety. The first is the one you mention...notorious, large scale and newsworthy catastrophes. But as much as these may strike fear into people's minds, the deeper 2 problems are:
(1) Continued and more aggressive creation of nuclear power will produce larger and larger amounts of nuclear waste and there hasn't been a particularly satisfying solution to this waste issue...and
(2) the potency of the materials and quickness with which it can poison water and air and contaminate a large region is a problem. Even if the actual number of disasters is relatively small, there is some question as to whether any of the notorious plant failures was really as bad as it could get. It is probable that if we had more plants and more time using then, there would be more failures. And I'm not sure we know how bad any of these failures could be, as compared to the failures that have already occured. All things being equal (which admittedly they are not) I think people prefer to use less potent materials (i.e. the worst oil spill, as bad as it might be, will kill less people than the worst nuclear disaster).
@@stevewiencek1354 I liked your answer... I have changed my mind over nuclear power though. There has been a lot of pressure for my country to store a lot of the waste from nuclear facilities. It's a fair call on the one hand because of the stable ground that is available here and that the responsibility for having a solution of sorts available for the waste problem that we profited from by providing the raw materials in the first place.
That all said it seems that we have the potential through fast breeder technology to drastically reduce the amount of waste that has been stockpiled around older style reactors and at the same time extracting vast amounts of energy from those same spent rods.
It looks to me to be a better long term solution than simply burying large quantities extremely long living and dangerous radioactive materials.
The cost of building these things might be prohibitive in the short term and I believe there's technical issues that need to be perfected but overall I like the idea of using this kind of technology as an intermediary step towards fusion.
I do think nuclear has its place but as a stepping stone to something much better.
Nuclear is incredibly safe relative to other fuels. In terms of deaths per unit of energy, it’s leagues safer than any fossil fuel. The main reason it isn’t used more is the very high starting cost, and lack of public support due to the misconceptions about its safety.
@@noahdiluca9857 Thanks for your contribution here. My question for you is what do you think about the 2 problems I sited above. (1) Using more nuclear energy will result in more nuclear waste over time. Do you have any projection on how to alleviate future risk from this? ...and (2) the "potential for catastrophe" problem, i.e. deaths per unit of energy have, so far, been low but it is imaginable that a future nuclear disaster could in one event change the balance of that equation. Also, this could be framed in other ways than human deaths, i.e. contaminated waters, geographic dead zones, etc.
I do recognize that what we're discussing here is the concept of "safer", not "safe." Comparing nuclear to fossil fuels, for example. But the other unspoken part of this discussion is about human reliance on any of these energy sources. Massive energy production and use currently is causing massive environmental damage. Are there sensible and rational ways in which humans can reduce our dependence on such massive energy infrastructures?
@@stevewiencek1354 In the biblical or Leftist Garden Of Eden , all problems have been solved. Out here in concrete reality, however, man's survival requires accepting the risk of knowledge. This means rejecting the nihilist evasions of modernism for the focused mind of the Enlightenment. Our culture is increasingly approaching the dystopia predicted in _Atlas Shrugged_. Pinker's understanding of reason is flawed but its vastly better than the views of mainstream authorities.
I would love to watch this but had to turn the volume to 68 to slightly hear it. Please adjust the audio and repost. Thanks kindly.
Connect your computers audio out to one of those ancient audio systems that oldtimers used for music back in the day. A good 50-100 watts/channel will do just fine. I could easily hear a Panamanian Latin jazz station from my big speakers on the second floor while repairing my car on the street. The neighbors accross the street didnt, apparently, share my musical taste. Sad.
13:20 "proof that there are no vampires"
Has anyone *ever* written a vampire story in which they convert a person every month? I've never heard of one. In a typical vampire story, it takes years for a mortal to have been fed on enough to rise from the dead as a new vampire when the vampire finally kills them. Meanwhile, at least in some stories, vampires tend to fight for pretty much the same range of reasons that living people fight, so even if the living are completely incapable of killing vampires, they kill each other off at about the same rate as they convert new victims to vampires.
In some stories all they have to do is drain a mortal victim to the brink of death, and then feed the victim vampire blood. They can do this as many times as they like, but the problem is that local vampire governments almost everywhere have a _very_ strict policy about not making new vampires without permission--punishable by destruction. It's in everyone's best interest anyway that there be as few new vampires as possible, so they can conceal their existence from mortals. And then there's also the issue of thinning blood from generation to generation, and the distrust of very thin-blooded vampires.
A misused mind creates vampires.
Yeah, I think we intuitively assume that most vampires end up dying to misfortune within a few hundred years. Also, in most fictional universes with vampires, I have the impression vampires convert humans into new vampires only very rarely. And they don't convert every single time they feed.
However his point still stands, even if you slow the rate in which new vampires are being created. To make the exponential growth model fit the vampire story, you only have to assume two things:
1) once a human has been turned into a vampire, they don't die. The vampire population does not shrink for any reason.
2) vampires convert humans into new vampires at an average rate, which doesn't change.
If each vampire converts, on average, one human per year, you will have a million vampires after 20 years. After 30 years you'll have a billion vampires. The numbers get really large, really fast. That's exponential growth.
If we change assumption 1, and we have some type of downward pressure on the vampire population, it still seems impossible to keep the vampire population under control. For example, let's say you have vampire hunters killing off a certain number of vampires, and removing them from the population. The upward pressure on the vampire population is so strong, that basically any scenario where the vampire hunters don't totally eradicate the entire vampire population every 8-10 years, the number of vampires will eventually explode. To keep the vampire population from exploding, you would need perfectly efficient hunters. By comparison, to have the vampire population explode, you only need conservative estimates and a few years.
@@wolfumz A fixed set of mortal vampire-hunters definitely won't suffice. But if vampires kill other vampires when they start encroaching on each other's territory, then it can be about as stable as any other predator/prey dynamics.
@@wolfumz Your eyelids are growing heavy. No bizarre thoughts are disturbing you. You are sleeping, dreaming of fluffy clouds...Everything is good...
Drive or fly?
The decision isn’t made solely on probability. Other factors come into play such as how long do I want to anticipate dying? If I am going to be killed in a car crash, it most likely will happen within seconds as apposed to having minutes to anticipate the big bang. NO THANK YOU
Personal control is another contributing factor. I can take steps to mitigate my risk. I can take quieter routes, chose less busy times, keep my skills as a professional driver fine-tuned. I have a degree of control over whether or not I become a contributing statistic. That is all out of my control when I fly. Self determination is an important personal value for me. I have chosen to drive right across the continent and have enriched my life by using the luxury of the extra time that has been available to me. Many contributing factors to consider
Choosing the level of risk, one is willing to accept shouldn’t simply be a matter of probability. The consequences are a huge factor that most people ignore. Two elements of risk should be considered. What are the chances plus what is the cost/gain. The probability of winning the lottery is ridiculously low but if the ticket is cheap, for a lark someone might take a chance. You might foolishly take a chance on driving impair and get home without incident but if something happened the consequences could be so devastating that why would you ever consider taking a chance.
We often have poor risk evaluation skills because we limit the factors that need to be considered. Considering probability alone when making decisions about risk is totally inadequate.
You are an „intellectual thinker“ if your writings will be remembered 100 years from now. Can’t name any currently alive who could achieve this.
I'd propose Iain McGilchrist and Joseph Campbell.
The Covid pandemic was a bad example because the threat of mortality remains reasonably equivalent to automobile travel for the vast majority of the population. The average age of a Covid fatality in the U.S. is over 80, which is older than the average age of general mortality.
If someone disagrees with you try confronting your opponent with logical reason instead of calling them irrational from the safety of a obsequious interview. Niall Ferguson would trash Pinker in an actual debate which is why he will never do it and only plug his unfounded Pollyanna biased data books on interviews like these.
Niall Ferguson is ideology driven. He doesn't care much for facts or history. He seems to think the world was created on 1600 Scotland. Can't see the big picture.
@@MarcoBonechi, Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
@@MarcoBonechi And the difference between ideology and the big picture...?
@@TheWorldTeacher Leftism and Rightism are intellectual choices caused by nihilist modern philosophy. Psychology is trivial.
@@TeaParty1776, that is rather PRESUMPTUOUS of you, wouldn’t you agree, Slave?
Presumption is evil, because when one is PRESUMPTUOUS, one makes a judgement about a matter, despite having insufficient facts to support one’s position.
It’s hard to believe anyone selling a book these days.
Pseudo intellectual bull sh**. 😁
I believe Steven was doing a job of gaslighting.
right hes being a pseudo intellectual by attempting to impress or persuade rather than genuinely inform. saw another comment that says it perfectly : kettle calling the pot black
Where is part two?
Isn't it amazing, ironic even, that a video exploring "pseudo intellectual bullsh*t" triggers the selfsame pseudo intellectual bullsh*t comments the video discusses. Fascinating
Epsteins Island is not for the intelligent
Takes one to know one? We must ask why so many brilliant people dismiss this man ? as absurd.
It is the pseudo-intellectuals who dismiss him. More hold him up as a truth teller. Please refute anything Pinker has stated.....with credible evidence if you want to be believed.
How bad is the sound?? Can’t finish this.
Ironically, SP serves as an example of one of the many contemporary “deep thinkers” who author lots of similarly-themed books and seem to recycle each other’s ideas: Gladwell, Kahneman, Ariely, Taleb, Mlodinow, Haran, etc.
💯 % 👍🏼
Gladwell is like eating a littery Chinese meal tastes quite nice at first but later on you feel empty
Just more labels to keep the mob outraged and their club exclusive.
You need ideas./
That you include Kahneman discredits your whole premise.
audio is very low
Judging by the title this discussion is dangerous. I have a serious question for anyone who has the answer. Whenever mankind's most brilliant minds build more powerful and destructive nuclear weapons they'll immediately point them at themselves! Is that a sign of intelligence ⁉️
Not to worry. Dr Steve assures us that things are getting better all the time. It's certainly worked out that way *for him*, and what else matters? The rest is left as an exercise for the reader. QED.
Perhaps the most brilliant minds are not engaged in Empire building. I imagine they are sitting quietly somewhere looking inward.
yes.
The religious hatred of man becomes more obvious in modern thought.
I have denied knowledge therefore, in order to make room for faith.
-Kant, top modern philosopher
@@nitrohanktoursamerica5047 Look out at reality, not inward. Focus your mind.
I know it is very complex technolgy. Please press the button (cc), it is at upper right on your screen. It appears after press (...). By the way cc means closed caption. Good luck.
Why the frantic switching between camera angles?
I learned that in the 80's in Intelligence school. The first thing we learn is how to spot fallacies of thinking and that common sense is usually wrong, not right. We were a bunch of high scoring freaks with good minds.
? In the 80's they tried to put me in a TAG school for the talented and gifted. With decades of hindsight, such things have become a meme.
IQ now has a stronger correlation with depression than with economic success.
@@elinope4745 but still a higher economic success rate than average or low IQs.
I learned in the 80's, to use the shorter word, if it means the same thing.
Why is common sense more often wrong?
Also, in my life I've found " common sense" isn't v common?
The Count. Perfect t-shirt for a mathematician. Love it.
Easy way to find out if someone is a pseudointellectual-
1) They will go on Joe Rogan's podcast.
2) Will talk a lot without saying anything.
3) Say things in a vague way that can be interpreted a million different ways.
Eg- Peterson, Weinstein bros etc...
Part 2 says its private and not show
"Why is everybody so GD stupid?" - Everybody
What personality trait leads to undermodulation?
Thats why I try to keep language simple easy to understand.
Audio is too low, UA-cam commercials are deafening. Un-listenable.
8:04 I believe there is technically insufficient information to determine that question with absolute certainty. (If after thirty days the pond is completely covered, then also after thirty one days the pond is completely covered. BOOYA!) If that last statement was, "If upon the thirtieth day the pond first becomes entirely covered by lily pads...", then boom.
Shame about the sound quality. Interesting camera angles and editing . Flows like a teaser or trailer. ..no offense .
Shame the production was so poor.
People's preference for driving over flying has nothing to do with probability, though. The point is that when you drive, you have a lot if control over your own safety, whereas when you are a passenger in a plane, you have none at all. They're misusing these statistics.
SOUND!!!
Ty sir
One can deduce from seeing givens/data in context whether the data were true or false...
Couldn't help but rebut in to define "Equations" as " Alphanumeric Fictions" to confuse the "Pseudo Intellectual Buffoons & Quasi Spiritual Midgets" to a degree of Infinitum !
this is a rich title coming from pinker
I have been to one of Pinker's talks in London years ago. It was entirely forgettable and by no means enlightening. To my mind he is an astute businessman but not an intellectual at all. This is the pot calling the kettle black.
Maybe you should adjust your expectations- looking to others for enlightenment is a fool’s errand. If his lecture was simply looking at a flower would that be better?
I have to agree, he’s enormously disappointing in the end.
He has some strengths. The Sense of Style is one of my favorite books about writing. His popular linguistics works (e.g. The Language Instinct) are very entertaining. But in his new expanded role as public polymath, he is definitely overextending himself.
@@pauleven6875 Ummmm.... Are you seriously saying that one should attend a lecture and *not* hope to at least learn something, or acquire a new perspective? By your standard, what distinguishes a good lecture from a poor one, the quality of the free donuts?
You evade ideas for emotion and personal attack.
Pinker can talk. He's one of the great pseudo intellectuals.
He'd be the one in the cattle car telling everyone else (while they're being herded into the gas chamber), not to worry because aggregate violence, in a global sense, is going down...🤷♂️
@@bootstraphan6204 Exactly. A soulless academic data-aggregator is no intellectual.
@@dylanberndt6708 so academics need "souls" and not "data". Nice when you guys accidentally say it out loud
@@itsnotatoober Both, actually. What made you leap to the assumption of mutual exclusivity? People these days...
Translation: "I have no counter argument to anything he states".
Rationality?
Shocking sound quality.
What do you say about Ray Dalio's All Weather Portfolio?
I agree with Pinker on several things, but it seems unfortunately naive to expect the average person, or even those more intelligent than average, to simply choose to be more rational. It doesn't work that way in reality, does it? It seems like he is making observations but can't offer any realistic solutions. How wonderful would it be if we could just ask people to "be more rational"? ... I happen to be a naturally rational person. A lot of people frustrate me to no end with how gullible and intellectually lazy they are, and how biased their thinking is, but they just don't see it. I probably annoy them by being "overly analytical" but that's how I am wired and I enjoy it - this way of thinking has helped me get through many struggles. It doesn't come easily to everybody, though.
I also dislike how a lot of people believe that you cannot be both rational and empathetic. Or how they confuse emotionality for irrationality. It is absolutely possible to be both (rational and empathetic). But according to my life experience, it's rare to come across such people. Metacognition is very uncommon.
Reduction is en vogue
Is he talking about the present state of the academy or about the present state of approved public discourse?
Terrible sound. Couldn't hear well enough to enjoy or learn from this discussion.
This is the fourth interview I see with Mr Pinker and in stark contrast to many other interviews I have seen lately it is generally a very underwhelming experience.
He's getting old. He's tired. He should 5uck off already.
What did he say? I can't hear a word.
FFS, he's written how many books? So which one are they supposed to be talking about????
Daniel Dennett had a cool name for pseudo intellectual bollox, he called it a “Deepity”…the kind of trivial nonsense that Deepak Chopra comes out with. When I first encountered the term, I thought it was named after Deepak! But apparently it’s not…
Hashtag sodeep.
You've got to be kidding. Steven Pinker is the King of “pseudo intellectual bullsh*t”.
If I'm not mistaken he was a passenger of Jeffrey Epstein's "Lolita Express'! Science desperately needs to get rid of a bunch of really despicable individuals!🙈
@@manoftheworld1000 you're not only "mistaken" you are a simple little angry child for tossing it out there like you know anything about it at all, other than some aspersions from fox, newsmax and other right wing and tabloid rags
@@manoftheworld1000 ua-cam.com/video/2XsSQAtxVA4/v-deo.html
Jealous
jeff booth! would love to see steven talk to him
Thank you all involved for sharing all that you do.
Sounds like he is referring to JP
11:00 IS HE TALKING ABOUT DEEPAK HERE? LOL
Very poor audio.
I wonder how humanity will be curtailed? By what measure?
That has to be the most ironic title in history.
What’s the probability your audience can follow your discussion when you do it in a big old echoey hall?
With low mic volume.
To summarise:-
1. Using logic can be dodgy if you can't exactly define the premises.
2. We are crap at understanding numbers.
This could have been said in 5 mins max.
90% of the people shown in the introduction are classic pseudo-intellectuals.
Rational is the state of mind before the Bullets start flying…
Hitler likes you.
What a pity the sound levels are so low. I won’t be able to listen to this unfortunately.
But many intellectuals say Pinker is guilty of sloppy thinking…
He totally is
He's a clown playing a (quite lucrative) schtick.
Who says that and in regards to what? I think he’s wrong about some stuff but I wouldn’t say he’s sloppy lol. Honesty curious.
@@jonjacksongrieger255 his earlier books are good, but his pollyanna thesis is crap.
@@keithhunt5328 "pollyanna thesis" could you be more specific
Exx
Exponential growth is on exponentially eliminated resources limited by replenishment of resources.
Mans mind focused on the vastness of the universe is capable of virtually unlimited creativity. Modernists hate mans mind because it requires the risk of knowledge. Theyre waiting for Godot.
@@TeaParty1776
"capable of" and "performing" are entirely different.
Magicians and scammers exploit this difference for personal gain; the magicians do it honestly by saying "it's magic" ahead of time.
@@rustycherkas8229 Your point?
@@TeaParty1776
Point? My point?? None.
I had the impression we were gathered here to spruik wanky pseudo-intellectual claptrap...
No.. No 'point'...
@@rustycherkas8229 Unpleasant weeds grow in a vacant mind
volume too low !
If logic can be reduced to something as simple as math and decisions made in such a manner it sounds great, but like so many ideas is not realistic. If for instance, one believes in evolution, then the logic would show that if logic was advantageous, then most people would think in such terms and ways. But 90 percent of people are non-rational. So obviously over time evolution has selected for the non-rational thinkers.
This is one of those pot-meet-kettle situations
Newton is back 🎉❣️
Don’t worry Steven, we’re all onto your shtick already. You don’t have to warn us.
ashkena...
what? First I thought this was Thomas Gottschalk
Nice boots sir Voltaire.
Can’t hear
Can’t hear it !
I have the volume turned up to 11 and can barely hear what Pinker is saying
Who put Helen Keller in charge of camera and sound?
Things that are not true require made up words and long sentences. Things that true can be expressed in simple language.
Algorythms are the gremlins of social media!
the sound gets fixed 8 minutes in