Steven Pinker on Noam Chomsky & Sam Harris
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 чер 2024
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal
Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
Twitter: / toewithcurt
Discord Invite: / discord
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
TIMESTAMPS: Irina Li
0:00:00 Introduction
0:00:57 What is the Left?
0:02:05 Does Pinker identify with the Left?
0:03:12 When does the Left go too far?
0:05:40 How is the contemporary American Right even worse?
0:07:15 Does Pinker see the rise of the campus Left as becoming more extreme in the past few years?
0:08:31 Increase in social and residential segregation
0:09:52 Do universities follow a propaganda model?
0:10:41 Why are certain disciplines more ideological?
0:11:32 Does the Right pose a greater threat right now?
0:13:42 A market economy in reality vs. libertarian fantasy
0:15:13 How does the identity politics undermine Pinker’s categorization as in-group vs. out-group?
0:15:51 How the idea of a global civilization of transnational organizations is utopian.
0:17:17 Definition of the Enlightenment and its values
0:18:49 What is Pinker’s view of progress?
0:21:45 Does Pinker agree that technological progress is tied to ideological progress?
0:22:44 Does technological progress match to ideological progress in the West?
0:25:08 Is universal human rights a Western concept?
0:21:14 Is the genesis of the Enlightenment uniquely European phenomenon?
0:26:27 Do we run the risk of decaffeinating the Enlightenment into the core essence of human beings that seeks freedom?
0:27:25 Would Pinker attribute the polygenesis of the Enlightenment ideas as a reflection of our human nature?
0:29:36 Is it something that’s beyond humanism?
0:31:50 Are human beings players in the game where the rules are beyond them?
0:34:17 Is there another option to the Enlightenment values?
0:37:05 Pinker’s thoughts on Sam Harris’ “The Moral Landscape”
0:37:53 Is a view of progress compatible with Post-Modernism?
0:39:11 Are some cultures better than others?
0:40:27 The price that enlightened societies paid for their progress
0:43:02 Were those evils contributing factors for the success of enlightened societies?
0:44:43 Is Jordan Peterson causing harm to the Enlightenment project? Thoughts on Noam Chomsky
0:47:48 Thoughts on the redefinition of words
0:52:51 Has any organization ever imposed a certain word, which people had to use?
What you're seeing is un-edited, raw footage for an imminent documentary Better Left Unsaid betterleftunsaidfilm.com on the topic of "when does the left go too far?" Visit that site if you'd like to contribute to getting the film distributed (in 2020) and seeing more conversations like this weekly.
The conversation is between Curt Jaimungal, Peter Glinos, and Steven Pinker. - Наука та технологія
This is how an interviewer should ask questions to an expert: short, to the point. No life stories or long-winded forewords. The audience is interested in the expert and the expert has probably much more to say than the interviewer. Congratulations!
Also really impressed with the intelligence of the questions. And pinning pinker down with specifics in the question.
Pinker is great but all of the questions are leading
Grgrory
@Lancelot Arc
What's so terribly wrong with using the label 'expert' upon an interesting or professional person in general, for describing the different positions of interviewer and interviewee?
He wasn't talking specificly about Pincker, but if your virtual laughter was meant derogatory towards Pincker being called an 'expert', just say so and explain yourself.
Expert in what?
What is Pinker's expertise?
Life?
I've come to notice that it's not just one video that you have the whole video broken up into parts, each of them being labeled, and I have to say it's so appreciated. Many content creators do it sometimes but that consistency is really something. Loving your channel and everything it offers so far.
Excellent interview, manner, content and tone. Haven’t listened to Pinker much but enjoyed thoroughly his measured stance and viewpoints
Thank you for this high quality Q & A.
This is absolutely a hidden gem can't believe I missed this interview. Thanks guys for making this happen.
Good job on an interesting interview. Its too bad that the sound quality on Pinker's side was so poor.
ask your interviewees to audio record at the site and you will get much better results.
Thanks guys, good content. You did great. Lots to think about.
Great to listen to to Steven as usual. I did fall for the click bait naming of Harris, Chomsky & Peterson though. I think he covers all 3 in under two minutes.
I agree with this. I also clicked on the vid here because I was curious to hear Steven Pinker's thoughts these days on his quondam professor, Avram Noam Chomsky.
G Standen funny how he doesn’t bring up his trips on his buddy Epstein’s “Lolita Express” jet, or how he was friends with him long AFTER his 2008 conviction of underage rape.
B J He was never “friends” with Epstein.
@@noiseofknowing8964 Just a client.
Richard Metzger At most Pinker accepted a ride on Epstein’s jet with several other academics. Epstein was not on the jet at the time. Other than that Pinker never took a dime from him. I don’t agree with everything Pinker says either, but I only criticize those ideas, these other accusations are pretty thin.
Pinker's position is of course well established, him having written the whole of BAOON on the topic, but the more recent (and similarly large!) book "Behave" by neuroendocrinologist and primatologist Robert Sapolsky, of similar stature to Pinker, challenges this (to me oversimplified) view that it's the case that the nomadic tribes of the past were more violent than current day. From Behave, a more subtle argument comes forth that agrarianism, and particularly postoralism engenders violence, whereas hunter gatherers much less so. i say this as someone who used to propound the same argument as Pinker, but who had enough arguments with people of differing opinions that i went digging and the literature is pretty convoluted with no obvious consensus. i was certainly sold most by Sapolsky's view, which was in line with the best of the papers i read on the topic until then. i'm not an expert by any means though, just a biologist who likes to read.
Sapolsky is an amazing scholar. Few people understand the human brain like he does. I have yet to read Behave, but I need to. I have watched all of his 2011 Lectures on Human Behavioral Biology (great activity during last Spring's COVID) shutdown.
Absolutely terrific job. The final segment was fun. Props to Steven for being real.
I hope I don't sound like I am complaining because I am grateful to hear him interviewed and you folks did a great job of letting him talk ( unlike some others). One possibility for great guest audio would be to send them ( snail mail ) a little audio recorder ( Zoom, Tascam, Yamaha) with a post paid return envelope, have them set it down somewhere near their mouth, and then leave it in their mailbox for pickup. Total postage should be just a few dollars.They would not even need to shut it off. Then substitute the good audio when you receive it. You are correct that the sync is not locked ( wild sync they used to call it ) but todays time bases are so good you may not even need one retrim near the middle of the program. Thanks for getting this great guest!
I guess you can call it "radical left" relative to how far right we have move in the last 40 years.
Universal healthcare is only radical for the insurance company and big pharma,
More strident environmental laws is only radical for polluters.
What is radical is privatisation of the basic needs for a society to function.
abolishing borders (which means abolishing nation states) and openly calling for a solcialist revolution by dismantling the "racist, patriachal and oppressive "economic system and social norms is pretty radical. how much more radical can they even be?
Grrakkh nobody serious wants to abolish borders. What the educated left criticizes is that immigrants are often used as scapegoats for every crime that happens in the US. Also, a wall is not only costly, does it really help? And: there are real refugees from Latin America that suffer from dictatorial regimes. Shouldn’t you at least try to help them? The alternative is returning them which is against human rights if they are threatened.
You are talking about a radical minority. Reforms like access to health care, acces to education also for those who aren’t millionaires, protection of workers’ and consumers’ rights, advocating for regulated markets that prevent monopolization and corporatism (companies bypassing the people by writing or dictating the laws to politicians who they pay) - these all are not a “radical socialist revolution”.
We should stop branding everythimg with fancy terms that have a meaning to broad to be precise.
For example, “socialist” can mean Sovjet socialist (very bad), it can also mean Social-Democrat (the guys that advocate for easy access to education, health care etc).
The same with “Capitalism”. Everybody sane is for private property. But it can also mean Corporatism.
We should talk about the concrete issues.
The rest are just terms. Right and left are also just words. We should focus on the issues and discuss pros and cons.
@@charlesbourgoigne2130 "nobody wants to abolish borders" this is just disingenuous.
Beyond that, all the stuff you outlined as not radical, arent radical obviously. Theyve been normal left wing causes for a long time. Something very different and truly worrisome is happening culturally right now and every ex-communist expat is telling us to be careful and concerned. Maybe "socialist revolution" isnt the most proper academic definition but im pretty sure you understand what hes trying to say and handwaving it isnt going to help you cross that aisle.
ua-cam.com/video/GqgOvzUeiAA/v-deo.html Check out Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather. Canada's "Greatest Canadian" Tommy Douglas. There are tons of UA-cam videos about him. He was Canada's "Bernie" eighty years ago.
What the left have never understood is that, before you start redistributing wealth, you first have to create it. Hospital beds and welfare are bought by the taxes of the rich, not by governments. Governments don't have any money.
There ought to be a conversation between Steven Pinker and Jared Diamond on the violence within/by states versus tribes topic. My understanding of Mr. Diamond on this issue is something like the following. Within a given tribe the rates of violence tend to be lower than in states. It is intertribal conflicts that make the incidents more numerous in tribal societies. That being said the magnitude of violence of the state far exceeds that of tribes due to the technology and power of states when it comes to war.
The power of the modern state to wreak violence is definitely much greater, and therefore much more important to keep under strict limits because its potential is genocidal and on a scale a tribe can never achieve.
Relative to the population, tribal violence is much bigger. Each individual is much more likely to die from violence in tribal culture. Each individual! The bigger size of states does not change this refutation of commie peace and love.
Also, all societies, including tribal, have states. Anthropologists discovered implicit, subtle states in kinship and clan relations in tribal cultures, even tho there is no formally separate state.
@@TeaParty1776 Relative to the population each individual is much more likely to die from violence in tribal culture than in a state, at the hands of people within their tribe or from another tribe? Tribes tend to be isolated from each other and so there can be a great deal of the fear in the unknown in dealing with other tribes, but in the well adjusted tribes which are plenty you'd just be appalled by the commie peace and love.
@@urganodevotaton > well adjusted tribes
That sounds like Margaret Meads Leftist willingless to be defrauded by tribal people who evaded discussing widespread rape.
@@urganodevotaton True. except for your mysterious well-adjusted tribes.
Rational Optimism-Matt Ridley
Better Angels-Steven Pinker
Capitalism-Ayn Rand
Great interview, thank you. At 32:00 onwards the discussion asks whether human rights are independent of humanity. Pinker answers correctly that they are, but here is a different reason. Laws of Physics arise from symmetry principles, and so do Laws of humanity. "Do unto others as to oneself" is just a statement of symmetry. So it is symmetries that generate various Laws. The only difference between the Laws of Physics versus those of humanity is that in the former there is no choice, but in the latter it is a cultural choice.
I watched this because there was a recent article in the NYT, July 16, 2020, about Steven Pinker who had come under fire from the left for stating that "Problem is not race, but too many police shootings," in relation to his tweet, "Data: Police don't shoot blacks disproportionality." I concur, this is what the data says.
In this interview, the query was put concerning Enlightenment values and progress. The problem as I see it is that Enlightenment values with regard to ethics and history are "rationalistic," and not merely because of Hegel's famous, 'the real rational, the rational is real.' Historians from Ranke and Vico, Meinecke and Troeltsch, Goethe to Weber, and the huge literature around this problem of values and historical events, have all struggled unsuccessfully to wed history to an ethical explanation. At best, relativist positions hold sway against the palpable irrationality, which ironically tends to include science and technology! It cannot be justified that slavery, the US Civil War and its aftermath, European colonialism and mutual hatreds leading to WWI, and the German-Jewish debacle are 'rational!' Thus, a lacuna presents itself in the claim that the Enlightenment is foundational!
You guys are Great and Touch on sores in US propaganda to best benefit of Viewers! I "Loved" your Naom Chomsky interview.
I have to ask, just out of curiosity. This isn’t by any means bait and this question is specifically for you.
Why was the word loved put into parentheses in your comment?
Capitals and quotation Marks, I dont see brackets anywhere. TOE just seem dodgy to me, they'll know why. Steve's funny, a political bullshiter sitting pretty in the US.
I call him Mr. Blinker for he'll try to put blinkers on his Audience ever chance he gets. 6 mins in and the vomit is almost never ending.
Don’t agree with him politically, but what a nice fellow, and, as always, what nice hair!
What a pleasure to listen to this informative interview. Thank you.
I like this approach to making a documentary / current events feature length film. in particular, I note the tag-team strategy for the interview. how is it going? I've just subscribed. :)
If you had the guest record his audio on his end ( directly, not through the chat) , then sent you the file, and you substituted it for his chat audio, he would not sound like he was at the bottom of the ocean and be so fatiguing to listen to.
Working on it. - Curt
But they would have to convince the guest to do that extra work, and I would imagine some guests would balk at jumping through any production hoops due to their busy schedules without some incentive. They're probably just grateful to have the guest agree to the interview and wouldn't want to scare them off with homework assignments. Perhaps if the interviewer sent a guy to assist the guest in the event they can't be bothered.
It would have taken quite a bit of work to sync, in this case, as there are frequent dropouts throughout the interview. Those would cause a delay and mismatch between the audio and the video.
@@johnhauber6458 its basic editing...
@@johnhauber6458 If you know how to edit video/audio at all, this is one of the simplest things to do. You just align video and audio once and it'll be good for the entire conversation.
"I have an eclectic mix" - It's just all the totally reasonable opinions that most of the population has. But because of how things are now, it's somehow weird to think those things.
Exactly
completely sensible and well reasoned. gr8 vid.
I've felt like this for some time now, since reading Pinker's life chanigng book, better Angels of Our Nature - I can't think of another human being who I admire and hold in higher esteem than Pinker. While it's never healthy to have your worldview impacted so much by any single person, Pinker's fact and statistic based arguments have completely flipped my worldview on its head. I used to be very pessimistic about the world, and now I keep our current world problems in the context of how far we've come, on some many levels
I think things have definitely been improving since civilization started. But I do think a lot of people are missing some major elements of life that existed before civilization. A major element of “work” was hunting, which you did with friends and family. Life was far more brutal, dangerous, and physically less comfortable, but living was also more meaningful and vivid, I would think. It’s definitely a trade off, and maybe we’re much better off, all things considered.
It’s also possible the future will veer from the current trajectory. China is a rising, non-democratic power. We can hope a burgeoning middle class will transform it into a democracy, but new technology changes the dynamics. Technology might ultimately strengthen government power, allow for authoritarianism to take hold everywhere. What better tool is there to counteract rebellious sentiments in a population than AI.
Technology changes dynamics, so we can assume all the forces that have propelled us toward our better angels will continue
Sean Matthew King I do not think an argument can be made live had more meaning during hunting gathering days versus today. When children and those giving birth died regularly, when life consisted many of worry, doubt and no security, when life was mainly focussed on mere survival ... there clearly was less time to be given to meaningful pursuits. Combines with the sheer level of ignorance a lot of meaning was misguided. Today, the availability of free time is astronomical in comparison. Of course how individuals chose to utilize that is up to them, but there is no doubt the amount devoted to meaningful personalized pursuits is unheralded. That’s free time, as for hours spent working, there again is not doubt right now there is simply no comparison devoted to meaningful pursuits. Be it creators or innovators. Millions are focussed on eradicating illness for example yet others compose projects which ignite or stir the soul of billions. There is no comparison.
It sounds like your painting an idyllic romanticized notion of life back then while ignoring realities strengths today.
As for the concern over technology. Why is it that every generation concludes that today things are different? That somehow what we are on the cusp of is not akin to what our ancestors in the past faced? To be sure, things aren’t the same but the forces are in many ways. I see no reason to fret about the potential benefits and overall trajectory of humanity as a whole given our increasing technology, in fact I see it as potentially propelling the net positives we have witnessed so far.
@@seanmatthewking hey sean, while i agree with you that living standards, health, wellbeing, education, human rights, have all gotten so much better since hunter gatherer times, I think you might be romanticising just how tough, short and unforgiving hunter gatherer tribal life was. If by meaningful you mean that hunting and foraging and being v close to the natural world is more fulfilling than say the average office worker's safe, sterile environment, I think you are grossly underestimating how mortally dangerous and constantly stressful a life foraging out in the wild would be. Firstly, you wouldn't be doing it with 'friends and family'. You'd be doing it in a hierarchical, physically enforced group of often violent men. Agression breeds aggression, and this would be no walk in the park picking daisies. There are examples of stone age men found in their cave habitats with their heads stoved in, from behind, suggesting that intra-tribal disagreements and politics were lethal. Just as you see with our closest primate relatives, chimpanzees. I might have thought along the same lines as you Sean before I read Pinker's book, Better Angels, but he lays the evidence out clearly - tribal hunter/gatherer life was actually MORE violent and you had a much higher chance of a violent death than compared to agricultural settlements, then ancient civilisations, and so on. The trend actually goes to a DECREASE in violent deaths per 100,000 capita of the population, as humans progress from hunter gatherer life to modern civilisation. Not the other way. This is partly because tribal warfare was rife in hunter gatherer life, as evidenced by a whole body of anthropological studies on tribes from around the world. Also Sean I think you're romanticising how utterly nasty a winter in a cave woulid be. And then throw in some hungry bears, some tribal neighbours who want to kill you and rape your women, and you've just noticed that the cut on your leg that you got some time ago is really starting to stink and antibiotics don't exist yet. Really, there was absolutely nothing better or more meaningful about hunter gatherer life, Sean :) What amazes me is that humans used to be so tough and heroic that we actually managed to get through those unbelievably harsh times and come out the other side to where we are now. It's an incredible story really, especially for a species that is so prone to bias, prejudice, superstition etc. Anyway, READ PINKER'S BOOK, Better Angels, it's simply fantastic, you will not regret it!
1. Why do you think they had less free time? Everything I read suggests they worked less.
2. And what they did for work was done with friends and family. You’re right that it’s possible to find work today that’s as meaningful as one can imagine, but I like to tap about numbers--what percent of people find their work meaningful? Yes, it’s possible to live a life that’s the best of both worlds, where you’re safe, happy, comfortable, living with meaning, etc. But this is beside the point.
3. “It sounds like your painting an idyllic romanticized notion of life back then while ignoring realities strengths today.“ I don’t know what you’re basing this on. I said “Life was far more brutal, dangerous, and physically less comfortable“-how does that acknowledgment fit with your description? I’ll add despair to the list of negative traits. The death around you triggers despair.
4. But this leads me back to my main point: one can live with danger, pain and suffering, and despair while still leading a meaningful life. In fact, I think these things generate meaning. Especially when you have tradition developed over thousands of years that helps you translate these feelings into meaning.
Assuming you accept evolution, you understand that our yearning for meaning developed with hunter-gatherer society. If that’s where it’s yearning developed, I would imagine that’s where it’s fulfillment can be found. I don’t want to speculate too much deeper, because I’m sure there are anthropological studies on these topics.
As for the future:
I haven’t concluded anything about where the future is going. Where it’s going depends on the specific forces. Why has technology so far aided us in improving society, and why do we foresee those forces as continuing? Many trends have began and faded. This one has had a large arc, but it’s longevity doesn’t itself tell us anything about the future.
Since we developed nuclear weapons, there has always been uncertainty about our future. Look how long it takes us to address a problem like climate change. Surely that should give your optimism some pause. Assuming climate change isn’t as the worst projections (not a warranted assumption, but for the sake of my argument), doesn’t this tell us something about the ability of global civilization to avoid large scale disasters?
A specific concern I already mentioned was the threat of AI combined with authoritarianism. AI can be used to more effectively control populations. Corporations are already keeping massive data files on people and learning how to convince you more effectively to buy shit, and the technology is still very primitive.
One AI surpasses human intelligence in all the key ways, it can improve itself quicker than humans can, which results in exponential growth in improvement. Depending on who develops it and how far behind others are, the group that controls it (if even possible) will have the power to take over the world soon enough. It’s bad news when one group has uncontested power.
Things like this have happened before on different scales. Guns, for example, were a game changer. But AI could be much different.
What I’m talking about are technological changes that redistribute how power is redistributed. I don’t know at all how things will play out, but you can’t assume all technological changes will result in positive changes without articulating a mechanism for why that would be.
And let’s be clear, I’m not asserting that things will play out in a negative way. I can make guesses based on why I know, but I acknowledge my ignorance is too vast to think my guesses hold much water.
“If by meaningful you mean that hunting and foraging and being v close to the natural world is more fulfilling than say the average office worker's safe, sterile environment, I think you are grossly underestimating how mortally dangerous and constantly stressful a life foraging out in the wild would be.”
I think meaning is distinct from danger.
I concede I don’t know enough about the dynamics within a tribe to say how fulfilling it would be.
“You'd be doing it in a hierarchical, physically enforced group of often violent men.” Since my entire argument was about meaning, the intro-tribal dynamics is the most significant part to dwell on. The rest isn’t news to me.
I’ve listened to most of the book on audio, btw. Just not recently. Anyway, short response I know. Don’t have time right now.
Endless leading questions
Loved the bonus questions at 47:00. Pinker is awesome and it's revealing when people attempt to discredit/'cancel' him. As Glenn Loury said, most of these critics couldn't carry his book bag.
There were NO bonus questions at 47.00.
That was when he signed off -
When was this recorded?
Another person to add to the list that I would like to sit and talk with over dinner or drinks or something like that.
Hide your kids hide your wife!
Sounds like Pinker is just fine with the state of affairs in the US. The things he believes in are all things we've had for a while.
You might have had a chance getting them several years ago, but not recently. I don't think Pinker 's very happy with the current state of affairs in the US, concerning the one(s) in power right now. But also concerning issues like progressive taxes, welfare, gun laws, racism, environment and climate, etc.
Chomsky and other scientists accused him of cherry picking data in order to prove his point but he believes that it's their ideology (in this case chomsky's) that lead them to that. He insists that his data are correct even though the scientific community strongly opposed them. It seems like he can't face the accusastions head on or he is the one with an ideology bias. Anyway intresting convo.
It would be great if you guys could add English subtitles for these videos. I can't always understand what is being said, and neither does google's auto-transcriber.
That first question was great and the answer was much needed for me
Good Q and A about "progress" around the 20 minute mark. Good detail and follow ups. I think that issues around progress are a big part of why Pinker is famous, so it's a good topic to explore.
Read "Civilized to Death" by Christopher Ryan. Pinker's understanding of "human progress" are not at all mainstream anthropological consensus. He is just another psychologist speaking about topics that he has little-to-no expertise in. What's up with Psychology? Really seems to pump out a lot of academics that embody the Dunning Kruger effect.
@@brocklewis9693 interesting. I think psychology fills some of the space left by religion, hence the rise of popular psychologists. Can you please link to any succinct summaries of what you consider to be a mainstream anthropological consensus? Id be interested to follow that up before diving into a book. Thanks
It's easy to see why Chomsky doesn't take this man particularly seriously.
Whom does he take seriously? One of his main revelations was defeated by Daniel Everett when he studied the Pirahas. Never trust arrogance.
I stopped taking Chomsky seriously years ago.
I wonder if now, Pinker would still say that the right is "worse" when it comes to taking ideology too far, of being intolerant of competing viewpoints, etc.
Guys, the conversation that you had with Mr. Pinker - ask the exact same questions to Dr. Stephen Hicks - You'll get a much different discussion. He'll actually define the terms that Mr. Pinker wasn't willing to define.
Being willing to define terms is no guarantee that those definitions make sense.
The guy with the beard sounds like Text-To-Speech
so Pinker would like to say that libertarianism is the consequence of a campus left that rejects markets out of hand. This is unsupportable. No credible left oriented campus groups are demanding 5 Year Plans, annihilation of markets, or anything else. At the margins this may exist, but to make it emblematic of the left is dishonest. And Libertarianism did not arrive on campus as a reactive product; it’s an ideological construction that has been in play since the 40’s at least, Ayn Rand passim. But this is a quasi-mainstream view, economic extreme radicalism and naïveté that holds comfortable sway not just in the Republican Party, but more important among their funders and controllers, such as the Koch Foundation, Coors Foundation, etc etc. I agree with Pinker that the deciding factor around libertarianism is its detachment from historical and economic reality, and it shouldn’t demand any of our attention. The fact that it does is much more the function of the distortion of astroturfing, and there is not more reason to debate the ideas of libertarianism than there is to debate core tenets of evolutionary theory. It’s reasonable to do so, but only if some novel approach or idea is the reason, Simply to babysitting the people who insist on the primacy of discredited, unsupported fantasies, is the same as bringing Lamarck back into the debate on fundamental organic biochemistry. The fact that they are accorded this space, and that Pinker cannot merely dismiss them, and panders to them, and tries to blame the left for them is indicative of the weakness of his position in this area.
What is the difference between enlightenment and self actualization? When Bill Murray was granted “total consciousness “ at death as a tip for being the Dali Lama’s caddy (the Lama was a big hitter, you know) , was that like 10 units of enlightenment.
47:03 "thank you for your time" wth.. I ended the video here and it took me a whole week to notice I had left 10 minutes of video unwatched. If you guys are continuing the interview you should edit out the first sign-off/ good-bye so people don't get confused.
2 separate thoughts. 1. How Dr Pinker describes his put personal political beliefs sounds like he's a fan of Canadian policies. 2. The authors are smart to populate the title with Dr Peterson and Noam Chomsky's names to increase the number of hits. For those wondering, the jbp question is near the end.
Thank you
Thanks, found this 27mins in, now I can skip to the end.
1. Canada has got a lot right. Not all, but a lot. If it were not so damned cold half the year the population would be a lot larger.
2. Who cares? Anyone with any intellectual curiosity will appreciate the excellent quality of the questions and Dr. Pinkerton's thoughtful and well considered answers.
I was a fan of Dr. Pinkerton and even more so after this interview.
Kudos to the interviewers on the high quality and well researched questions. I see a bright future for you both.
PInker is a class act. He is not only brilliant and a great writer, he refrains from personal attacks on his critics, even when they deserve it. He is an all around nice guy.
Can we have timestamps? When is he talking about Sam Harris?
Steven Pinker is one of my favorite people to listen to, if not the favorite. Thanks for hosting him!
44:41 what you're looking for
Jordan is against enlightenment principles and progress because he is sympathetic to religion? That is one of the dumbest thing I've ever heard Steve say. Religion is not in the way of scientific progress, in fact, it was at the core of the enlightenment revolution.
@@user-nc9pc3gr4c Just becase you dont understand/agree with it doesnt mean its dumb. Not sure where you live but on my planet religion was almost always in the way of scientific progress. At the time of enlightmement religion was at the core of everything...
@@ohrej Hmm. Maybe a little ignorant. The enlightenment partially grew out of christianity and its values. I don't think Jordan is diametrically opposed, but he is critical of the somewhat 'religious' rationality and think we should temper it with mythological wisdom. Or something like that.
@@user-nc9pc3gr4c Historically, many religious despots didn't allow for science or education to take place, because of the threat of forward thinking, progress, new ideas and, of course, the inevitable wake up and shake down of such despots.
@@Live0nnn I would agree, unless of course it served their interest. But at the time of the enlightenment, I don't think anyone was getting burnt at the stake. We had a few atheist, but most were Christian and achieved great progress. I just think it is unnecessary to bring that into the discussion one way or the other. Jordan sticks to science like glue.
"Unless you're a totalitarian language despot"... I believe the established term is grammar nazi.
Dude... pa-leese - the term *Nazi* is a proper noun and should therefore be capitalised... ;-)
@@charlesbourgoigne2130 except normativity in language is a contingent social phenomena, whereas math is universal
ua-cam.com/video/hslPNjqcXMk/v-deo.html
: It would be nice if "math" (*in general) were "universal" today. But it is not. There are many different mathematicians and each subbranch of mathematics tends to have significant debates. Of course historically it is even more true that "math" in general was not universal except in the most basic sense of arithmetic. We now use a modified version of Leibnitz's notation system for calculus, not Newton's notation system, and that means they were not 100 % the same.
By minute 3, this man had said more than 100 words that had never been used in US politics before
I appreciate people who measure their words. Steven Pinker is an exemplar. Thanks, Dr. Pinker!
Brilliant application of reason and germane facts to identify increasing individual and social well-being. Hear, hear!
Pinker made me really Re-examine my Position on Nietzche’s influence and work. Prior to reading Enlightenment Now, I didn’t know Nietzche still has such a huge (and he convinced me negative) influence on philosophical thinking and the cultural zeitgeist. I knew horrific damage had been done by the Nazi’s twisted interpretation of Nietzche, but thought other than that (a big ‘that’, I do not want to downplay the horror of the Second World War) had been limited to academia, essentially. I couldn’t believe my ignorance in that area of which I should have been responsible and looked into. Thank you Pinker
How did you get through academia with a degree without reading Neitzsche praise Aryans and Vikings? Sad. Still this is silly *the Nazi took allot of their inspiration from America* ...litterally modeling their racism off of ideas here, and modeling laws for Jewish oppression off of Jim Crow. Nazism is at home in America the left's fear and reaction no matter how crazy is merely the realization of that fact.
Don’t thank him - just give him some supple young girls on whom he can secrete all his gross fluids D:
Pinker is a lightweight. He impresses weak minds/
Read Carl Jung’s response to Nietzsche. The issue is that it is unwise to follow a value system just because you ought to. It is better to become consciously aware of oneself and go through a trans-valuation process. If we don’t go through such a process, even what we consider a genuine value can become a completely one sided stupidity. Right now I see one-sided value systems as one of the worst bulwarks to human flourishing.
@@rickmarlow3389 You should not make such statements in the form you did where you proclaim your opinion as if it was a fact but then provide no explanation or proof or even an argument to backup your opinion.
When you do that it implies that you are not a thinker.
If you had prepended your statement with "I think that", it would probably be perceived better but as it stands most people will think just the opposite of your proclamation since it is perceived as simply a statement with no thought behind it.
And perhaps perception is reality in this case.
19:54 left to our own devices, we’ll just entropically peace the fuck out of here✌️ human progress takes work
I wish i could have a conversation with this guy.
If you do, ask him who killed Epstein!
The Epstein thing can be called bigger than JFK. Way. Bigger.
I don't think it's fair to say that the right is pro Russia. In my experience, those on the right to whom Pinker was referring are anti interventionism, not necessarily pro Russia.
Exactly. This pro Russia nonsense was one of the most prolific examples of political propaganda warfare our young nation has ever experienced.
Me to I lost interest after it .. I think many scientists nowadays tell you things that they know for a fact it’s not true.
The only people I have seen in America that seem to be pro Russian, are the fools running around waving the hammer and sickle flag. And I have yet to personally see anyone on the so called right, now automatically called “The Alt Right” waving such a flag. I have on the other hand seen multiple people who appeared to be on the left or sympathetic to the left waving this flag while they engaged in civil unrest. The fact that I saw this on national news though could simply just be another form of propaganda and misinformation spread to the public. As ANY and ALL news sources are Bias in their own way, especially “mainstream”.
Shoulda asked him about Epstein, Little St. James and Virginia Jefferies
Why? He had nothing to do with that. Try judging people on actual EVIDENCE rather than the ravings of idiots. D.A., J.D. (lawyer) NYC
The tribal nature of modern attitudes towards political positions is somthing we have seen brutally in Puerto Rico for ever. It seems to be growing.
All issues should be judged on a case by case basis, not ideology. 👏👏👏
it's the "extreme 'middle'" that's the problem. this documentary is fundamentally at odds with reality.
The centrists in the US would be far right in most countries, ..
@@psivil.disobedience In Europe certainly, but European centrism appears to be far left capitulation to Americans.
@J A radical contrarian, more like it?
love steven pinker. intelligent, kind, and good.
is that why he was on the Epstein plane?
Yes. It is always enlightening when listening to him. Pinker is one of the sane voices out there. He defended James Damore as well, when the media tried to paint him as a sexist caveman.
Virginia Roberts accuses him of rape on Epstein's island in her book. He denies it saying he is too much of a feminist to do so. She describes him in her book as Steven [Redacted], a professor from Harvard with mad scientist white hair.
@@turquoiseafro1520 She was talking about a different Steven.
also takes money from jeffrey epstein lol
Much madness is divinest sense
Much sense the starkest madness
To the discerning eye
When I was in a major state college Business, Economics, Engineering departments were all right leaning (and they were not small, being about 50 percent of student body and professors); humanities and social sciences other than economics were all left; most natural sciences somewhere in the middle, none, or mixed political ideology. Journalism and film attracted liberals essentially because if you were more money minded in career direction you went into other majors. Art was apolitical, but culturally tolerant or "alternative." If the left academy had any systematic hegemonic edge, it was in dominating the introductory government, history, and English courses that were required of every major.
Where was that?
@@johnnytocino9313 Texas
I see Pinker's Canadian Police, and I raise him 1930's Spain, no money, no greed, no crime and therefore no need for the police.
I raise you the the brutal paleolithic,all former soviet republics after the collapse,many latin american countries that use nordic soft ass policies in violent societies(Uruguay,Argentina,Venezuela,etc).
I could go on and on.Anarcho syndicalism would be a huge step back in human progress.
Im from latin america and I can guarentee you that there nothing more horriying that growing up seeing murder with inmpunity.We need a state willing to rehabilite those who commit minor crime and punish those who harm or kill inocent citizen.All socialist countries had death penalty for a reason.Tankies knew whats up
Oh and 1930 Spain was FAR from crimeless.Franco the fascist won because the republic was too busy infighting.Anarchotards vs socialists
Was the cause of the absence of crime the absence of police or vice versa?
I thought someone might ask that ;) It was actually the absence of money, therefore the absence of greed, therefore the absence of crime, and therefore the police went extinct . See Living Utopia 1997.
@@CometComment I'll check that out. Thanks for the info ^^
No problem. Always nice to find someone who genuinely wants to learn, instead of someone who claims to already know everything and just throws out insults like anotards or something.
I agree pretty much on every political and ideological line Dr. Pinker holds. I’ve had the privilege of attending his courses. He’s incredibly insightful.
I wonder if you would feel the same way had you received the same education under a different professor, not that you're biased or anything XD
@@Powd3r81
I agree with most of what Pincker says, but never had him as a professor. He 's one of the many (foreign) scientists that publish and appear in media that I found interesting and educational. I bought and read his book The Blank Slate long ago, and made me rethink and change my earlier ideas/views somewhat.
I find it interesting that the northern most spiritual cultures seem to go much deeper into the nature of consciousness- Buddhist/Hinduism & Taoism compared to the southern most regions of our planet-Aztec/Mayan & other indigenous tribes.
Great use of time, love it
I wonder if Dr Pinker still thinks the right is more dangerous after the left tried to cancel culture his ass
You will struggle to find a more civil, measured, thoughtful and reasonable public intellectual in the world today than Professor Pinker.
The academy is more 'left', especially in the arts, because the western canon itself, beginning with the Enlightenment, is liberal and is at very foundation of democratic principles, minus some obvious exceptions which today are rejected (ex eugenics).
It certainly makes no sense to consider authoritarian leftism/"progressivism" to be in any meaningful sense liberal.Yes, progressives no longer openly advocate for eugenics or scientific racism, but the impulse toward coercive social engineering from which these abominations sprang remain.
@@douglascarkuff1969
Socialism and authoritarianism are completely antithetical. The USSR called itself Socialist for the same reason the Nazis did; it plays well. The USA played into the USSR calling itself Socialist because they were smart propagandists and realized that if the citizens in the USA actually knew what Socialism was, their would likely be a political revolution.
Liberalism =/= Socialism. Socialism =/= Authoritarianism.
Socialism is about Democracy in the Workplace.
The USSR being labeled "Communist" is one of the worst tragedies of the 20th century. Authoritarian? Absolutely. Centrally planned? Absolutely. Socialism? Not even remotely close.
I went to two art schools. There was not a rejection of “the canon” in either school. There was an expansion of the canon both in literature and visual art. But people study western art as the core still.
And as far as I am concerned the western canon does not start with the enlightenment. If you start there with literature you miss Chaucer, and Shakespeare, Dante, and Eschenbach as well as ancient epics Virgil, Homer, Beowulf etc.
Why start in the enlightenment?
Matthew Kopp not to mention the republic by Plato, seminal work for classical liberalism
@@brocklewis9693 I understand that you wish to believe this, but socialism is inherently authoritarian, since it does not rely on free individuals making their own decisions. This is the inherent flaw that causes all socialist societies to become more authoritarian. I understand that socialists like to ignore history and play an elaborate game of pretend where all the fascist and communist states that oppressed, enslaved, tortured, and murdered people weren't really socialist, but it's a lie. They absolutely were doing their best to be socialist states and dealt with individuals who tried to liberal as the enemies to the system they were.
Why is that interviewer so obsessed with "Enlightenment Thinkers" and the "traditional (if there is one) view of progress?" The enlightenment was an historical period that existed only as recently as 250 years ago. A lot has happened in 250 years! Any answer to these types of questions are, AT BEST, purely academic.
The stinger is that the interviewer himself qualifies the question with "if there is one." Because, clearly, ideas about "progress" (such as they were) were variegated, and Enlightenment thinkers included French, German, and other Continental philosophers as well as the British that Pinker mentions.
BTW, Hegel was not an Enlightenment philosopher.
Well Pinker wrote a book "enlightenment now!" meaning it's how he defines his political stance. So I think that makes sense.
Because the Enlightenment is possibly / probably philosophically the most important event to have happened to Western civilization ever. You're a big boy plenty smart you can figure that out.Look up what Chou en Lai remarked 50 years ago about that period coupled with the French Revolution....
He got it!
@@tomdouglas6082
Nope definitely communism, historical materialism, english case-based law definitely the most important things to ever happen in Western civilization.
Who the hell bases their constitutions on John Locke?
Nobody else in the world
Nobody time stamped Peterson!
Political ideology=intellectual peacock feathers. Pinker, fortunately, likes to base his arguments on evidence.
Wonderful. Pinker’s such an unpretentious guy. Really refreshing.
48' in we get a language question for a linguist!
I'm not sure if the professor is aware that Gandhi borrowed his concept of ' non-violent resistance ' from Henry Thoreau, the Tathagatas and etc
How about NZ Maori in 1881 at Parihaka?
Absolutely love Steven Pinker
Such a smart man
@40:10 Pinker is careful to head off claims of a people being superior, which is I think, a very important distinction.
Great interview guys and Prof. S.P. ---- never disappoints. Read all his books - it'll take you a month but well worth it. D.A., J.D., NYC
To get through all of Pinker's works in only one month would be quite impressive.
@@richardcarr1556 It'd probably also be a waste of time
@@jmanakajosh9354 I am curious as to the reasons you hold that view.
@@richardcarr1556
Here's a taste of why my gut feeling loathes him:
He oversimplifies the Enlightenment and thinks that because there's no clear break between then and now that we've no original or new ideas to be adopted:
www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02148-1
His stance on the future is untenable:
www.lesswrong.com/posts/C3wqYsAtgZDzCug8b/a-detailed-critique-of-one-section-of-steven-pinker-s
@@jmanakajosh9354 Thank you. I"ll read them- have to keep an open mind. :-) D.A., NYC
Bernie 2020. If your a Bernie sceptic and believe we need to address govt corruption and corporate greed than you owe it yourself to watch his interview on the joe rogan podcast.
You're
You're
BoneyScribes
Yes you caught a spelling error of mine
Have a great day
@@BoneyScribes To paraphrase a great thinker of our times: your spiritually illiterate if an ortographical mistake catches you're attention.
Sorry, but I lasted 30 seconds because the sound quality is atrocious.
Keep doing these things but have some respect. Does Pinker deserve to have what he's saying distorted and mutilated? Do we deserve to have our ears tortured just because we want to hear his words?
Do some basic management and sort this out.
Meh, the interviewers sounds like children, what do you expect?
The issue with arguments against the radical left is that you acknowledge the persistence of a radical right that was left unchallenged and became the implicit status quo. In this way the radical left is just a balancing mechanism. Ofc if the radical left got everything they wanted they’d regret it because they don’t understand things deeply enough. But the radical left isn’t meant to win it’s meant to counterbalance the radical right. The fear people have that the radical left could win originates either in the sense that their position is in fact morally superior or that their position which is morally abusive is under threat(guilty conscience of the right).
i would like to know if Pinker thinks destruction of property (of, say, a large corporation) is or isn't violence
i notice the merriam-webster definition is "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy", which does not specify it as human, however, unders definition, the purposeful and consentual demolition of a building, or wall, or other structure, would be defined as violence. This would even apply to things like glass recycling, through which physical force is applied in an effort to destroy something (with the definition of destroy being "to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of")
Was a nice chance for asking him about his relationship with Epstein
Pinker straw mans a lot here, as if the U.S. is remotely close to anarcho-capitalism in its large social benefit commitments already, or as if the U.S. isn't one of the most successful (if not singular) ethnic melting pots in world history -- rather than in danger of becoming a Bannon-like ethnostate.
He is solid on calling out the fringes of both sides, but his emphases are distorted...
Indeed, he does straw man a lot here; trying to imply that American Leftists today want to replicate... North Korea? Venezuela? The USSR? What? And it's entirely unclear to me who he MEANS by "Leftists"--all of the good christian Socialists that I know are nothing like what he is describing.
Straw-men all around, indeed. It's sad that Pinker is the best that moderates can muster, but it's not surprising. They have nothing. They have even less than conservatives.
@Sweet Pea
It is no small thing however that America is as diverse as it is and gets along as well as it does -- this being an outlier in world history... America is one of the most ethnically diverse, harmonious societies in the history of the world.
Compare us with the roiling racial tensions of France, which is far more bigoted. Or to the ethnic homogeneity of Mexico, which is far less diverse.
Ethnic minorities from around the world continually line up to come here -- precisely because America is so welcoming to so many diverse peoples, despite its past sins that still ramify today...
There is no nation in the world that doesn't have fraught histories of groups at one point or another oppressing each other.
@20:00 ... that's the common view, but Freeman Dyson mentions a Chinese physicist who argues the universe doesn't obey this rule of order tending to disorder... because of gravity, as the universe started out homogeneous gas, now some hot regions get hotter, cold colder, and order increases. Also, evolution is an obvious counter-example... selective pressures perfect living things, not in general terms, but for fitness to their ecological niche and the success of their offspring.
i'm going to look into Jose Maria Gomez to see what Pinker is talking about, but few of the tribes or whatever had mini-guns, napalm, hydrogen bombs, or the ability to carpet bomb civilizations. What tribe, or "band" of men had the capability to wipe out millions of people during a single action such as has been done since WW1.
Pinker strawmans Chomsky and dismisses him as anarchist here. To say that societies with a "state" are less violent is a gross oversimplification similar to handing capitalism a victory for the advances of modern society as if products and markets only rise out of rigid proprietary hierarchies. Pinker is the stereotypical enlightened centrist that is often parodied. He chooses to ignore the bottom up movements that allow any forms of democracy to exist in the first place, so his loathing of "socialism" makes him an obvious hypocrite. This type of obsequious thought circle is what allows moral people to compromise their values under duress or other powerful influences in hierarchical structures which in turn is what allows disparities and atrocities to manifest in the first place. The Pinkers of the world are what Chomsky warns about. "Manufacturing Consent"
Pinker is a liar liars can't make actual arguments
@Lying Eyes For your lack of knowledge of informed consent, perhaps you should read the 5 filters and try to apply them for a couple days. Our recent "Iran drone" b.s. is a great example, we've got an embargo on Iran we've surrounded them militarily they shoot down a drone (possibly in their air-space) and suddenly they're an aggressor....an unmanned drone? C'mon. Just try looking at the filters for like a week you'll start seeing it.
I agree with your armchair sentiment but from the left. Anarchists like Chomsky (I mean the word in a technical sense) are just classical liberals who read Kropotkin one time. They've missed the whole point. And they've totally disengaged from Marx, who knew that getting the State to act in a way that helped everyday working people had to happen in the more developed countries 1st. (And that's exactly why he thought that movement would start in Britain and that's exactly what we've seen, we bombed Vietnam back into the stone age and almost nuked early china) if socialism doesn't create a peaceful first world, than socialism may never happen. But Chomsky has no solutions, no anti-fa, no fight, no methodology, no plan, no vanguard, and nobody he'll even campaign for.
All he has is criticism *of a system he tacitly supports through passivity*
@Lying Eyes Come on dude, what are you even talking about? Democracy itself is a collective movement which only exist in the degree to which it is demanded FROM THE BOTTOM UP. I can't think of any example in history where the advantaged or powerful just woke up one day and gave the peasants below them a seat at the table. These things have to be demanded. True, in modern industrial societies just the threat of disruption is often sufficient to sway the elite into compromise, but all movements require a minimal collective engagement before the pendulum swings in their favor. Democracy is messy and fleeting.
@Lying Eyes I'm sorry I misinterpreted you, didnt realize we agreed.
@Lying Eyes So let's look at what that constitution looks like. when it refers to "we the people" what it is actually referring to is white land owners. This is not a controversial statement. Going from that, to where the us is now, and "we the people" represents huge swaths of different people, is the result of a long and difficult bottom up struggle, including the labour movement and civil rights movement.
To me it sounds as though Steven Pinker @45:41 made a straw-man mischaracterization of Noam Chomsky's views of Anarchism espoused in your other video (ua-cam.com/video/XeWWz4y1coU/v-deo.html @11:21-14:31). I may be wrong!
Conflating the essential barbarism of "the life in the state of nature",
where raw unstructured expressions of power are the defecto arbiters,
versus asking institutions to justify their utility or submit themselves to modification/deconstruction seems harsh to me.
Based on these two videos and the handful of speeches and papers I've listened to/read from the two,
I think their world views have quite a bit in common.
I'm curious what differences they've found in each others' works/philosophies.
To me, it seems they both value the fruits of reason.
I'll have to look for myself.. or wait to see what y'all have to say!!
I look forward to your documentary! :D
I agree, Venezuela is not a dictatorship. It’s clearly a socialist utopia.
It's unbelievable that people still think the Paris agreement is anything close to achievable or even necessary. Who listens to anything the EUseless has to say?
Not to often to get such a concise piece that gives not hostile characterization of opposite dogma. What is this doing here... Discussion on realt libertarianism? Shit, who’d a thunk on UA-cam... what are they coming too. I was told this class this was an easy “A”. I don’t think so!
In my generation the right generally went off the rails intellectually by embracing a type of Evangelical Christianity and tried to defend literalist Biblical interpretations to the point of pseudoscience.
This may have won an electorate but lost all intellectual credibility (and also was not even necessary) And then on top embraced right wing Zionism as well.
Part of the reason, I think for this is mainline Protestantism in the 1970’s was often very socially liberal and many practiced the Social Gospel inspired by Paul Tillich and was anti-fascist and criticized US military involvement as well as social ills.
Some of the liberal mainline Churches like the Methodists are somewhat conservative. But would still inconveniently challenge politicians.
The reason I think this was intellectual suicide, was not merely the pseudoscience and literalism.
But there were actual limited government social liberal conservative intellectuals worth listening to back then. Now you get a lot of sophists, zealots and propagandists.
Cause pretending girl dick is real and a fetus is a blob of cells is sooo scientific.
You essentially have two competing absurdities. On the one hand the kind of biblical literalism that is devoid of context, and assumes meaning is universal and self evident. The bible as car maintenance manual. On the other you have self-identifying materialists, who treat science in a similar manner. People who believe mind is a mere epiphenomenon of brain matter and use mind to try and prove it.
Neither model can be lived authentically. They are placeholders, tribal affiliations that manifest as political poles. Left and right are the tips of icebergs with the bigger picture out of sight.
@@borderlands6606 you stated that very well.
Borderlands Yes, I think that is right.
Philosophically Christianity provides a type of phenomenology which can not be reduced materially and is absurd to interpret literally. And yet provides an important framework.
I am not conservative, but I think there were very intelligent conservative modern interpretations right before the moment the right embraced evangelicals like C.S. Lewis (died 1963) and T.S. Eliot (died 1965). Both from Great Britain but I am sure there may be obscure US equivalents.
But even „post-Christians“ like Joseph Campbell were politically conservative but socially liberal.
I think there was a void and it was filled haphazardly.
[Waves hand like Obi Wan] Just forget about creationism and flat earth, all the christians want is to kill the evil soviets like Bernie Sanders
This interview suffers a lot from the audio quality issues. You should not have conducted the interview with this setup.
Author of remarkable Books on Language and Cognitive Science
thank you so much time!
Why didn't you ask Pinker about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein?
Flew on Epstein's plane?
I admire both Pinker and Chomsky and both are worth listening to and reading. But neither are shouters who argue ad hominem
I like Prof. Pinker, who is always interesting. It is surprising that he refers to socialism for the left, but not to the Burkean tradition on the democratic "right." The US founders were Burkeans, more or less, Adam Smith, Lincoln, and many, many others. It sounds as if there is NO intellectual Anglo-American heritage, but it goes back to Plato and Aristotle. Oddd.
Since when did Adam Smith and Lincoln become U.S. founders LOL? Plato and Aristotle were opposed in thought which is why Aristotle was passed up for heading the Academy. Odd that you would hold these views.
These guys are smitten with Jordan Peterson, apparently. That already gives you a hint into their psychologies.
he's the anti-intellectual pseudo-intellectuals love! or is it, he's the pseudo-intellectual anti-intellectuals love?
sad
into their psychology*
I've always preferred Steven Pinker to any of the other IDW "members". Say what you will about the excesses of identity politics on the left, the right remains far worse, and too many on the IDW spend far too little time highlighting this important point. I'm glad Pinker does point this out.
Jordan Peterson, on the other hand, almost never criticizes the right, and when he does it he only goes after low-hanging fruit (white supremacists) briefly, and with almost no depth. That shows the difference between the two: Jordan Peterson positions himself as non-ideological, but he's very much on the right, while Steven Pinker is much closer to that ideal.
I guess your mind blocked out that him saying that he only thinks the right is worse is because they have more power right now. Which implies he thinks the nature of the left is worse right now
@@kingtigertank42 Don't recall that, but if he did say it or implied the left is worse right now, I would disagree anyway. And if he did say that or implied what you think he implied, then I would temper my praise of him.
I find that the right is much worse, and by a number of metrics. For example, if you look up statistics of right-wing vs. left-wing violence at the moment, you'll find right-wing violence is a far worse problem.
But I also think my broader point remains important, namely, that if you only ever seriously criticize the left you end up being a propagandist or useful idiot for the right.
If you look at things as they are at this moment i think its quite hard to argue that the left is worse in politics, since the right has the power at the moment, what I think Jordan Peterson is doing is saying that the left will become worse later so we should do something about it now before its too late. But putting Jordan Peterson to the side for a moment, it's quite clear that the problems on the left with them playing identity politics is the reason they lost the election to Trump in 2016, since they essentially abandoned the working class (obviously not all the left but certainly what mattered of it) adn even those that didnt abandon the working class have still been forced to play identity politics (i.e Bernie Sanders), so I would say the most important thing to do now would be to fix the issues on the left so they have a leg to stand on in an election and then maybe they can get something done, otherwise the power is just gonna stay on the right, nothings gonna change. I mean you can stand around all day complaining about the right, but you've still gotta do something about it.
@@theredking9458 I agree the excesses of identity politics did a disservice to the left in the 2016 election. Partly this is because the right-wing propaganda machine is very good at leveraging misdeeds by fringe people on the left as an attack on the left as a whole. While everyone's paying attention to unhinged college kids yelling at their professor, they forget that there continues to be a huge faction of Christian fundamentalists on the right with very scary and completely irrational worldviews.
I should add: the Democrats abandoned the working class well before identity politics gained the huge prominence it has today. That happened decades ago.
For me personally, the most penetrating argument I've ever heard against the right came from Peterson. I still think of his response all the time a year after I've heard it, and it's taught me to see many right wing tendencies as pride. You can see the topic clearly invokes his passion in the clip, it's something he genuinely cares about.
ua-cam.com/video/XmcQ6WHaSks/v-deo.html
@ he didn't say why he choose violence and how often it happened to judge progress. Chomsky never said his is a pacifist. He accept some kind of violence and reject other. He specifically reject violence from state or tyrannical structures which Pinker is underrating. Nobody is saying that violence against kids or women didn't decrease but Pinker is comparing a homicide to a genocide or at least approach them as comparable. He sounds like he wants to ignore the subjective experience of a human and replace it with logic based on statistics. For a person born a thousand years ago violence that would degrade the quality of their life is not their parents abusing them or their 9th brother dying in a fight, which happened a lot more back then, this kind of violence might have given life more meaning.
If progress in part is that people live longer, birth rates increase, etc, then inevitably the global carbon footprint increases and eventually “progress” as well as humanity will not exist or in the least not be “happy”.
That’s not true. C02 will peak and then decrease.