The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity (David Wengrow)
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- The Michael Shermer Show # 237
For generations, our remote ancestors have been cast as primitive and childlike - either free and equal innocents, or thuggish and warlike. Civilization, we are told, could be achieved only by sacrificing those original freedoms or, alternatively, by taming our baser instincts. David Graeber and David Wengrow show how such theories first emerged in the eighteenth century as a conservative reaction to powerful critiques of European society posed by Indigenous observers and intellectuals. Revisiting this encounter has startling implications for how we make sense of human history today, including the origins of farming, property, cities, democracy, slavery, and civilization itself.
In this conversation, based on the book The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity, Shermer speaks with professor of comparative archaeology, David Wengrow, about his pathbreaking research in archaeology and anthropology that fundamentally transforms our understanding of the human past and offers a path toward imagining new forms of freedom, new ways of organizing society.
SUPPORT THE PODCAST
If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.
www.skeptic.co...
SPONSOR
Wondrium
wondrium.com/s...
#michaelshermer
#skeptic
Listen to The Michael Shermer Show via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, and TuneIn.
www.skeptic.co...
"The Dawn of Everything" is a superb book!! Thank you dear David Wengrow; RIP David Graeber. Fascinating and radical new historical evidence beautifully and persuasively written.
I love David's gentle insistence on scholarly rigour.
I wonder how much of that is his training, his personal demeanor or was acquired from dissecting the works of lesser scholars like Diamond, Hancock, Hobbes or Rousseau and deconstructing those weak and tired arguments that evolved over the centuries from the early ages of erudite narratives of colonial aggression, racial supremacy, religious dogma and other forms of ill-conceived storytelling.
It's an outstanding book that challenges the mainstream view. One doesn't have to "agree" or "disagree" with such a detailed effort to rethink established ideas - perhaps better to suspend judgment and read it - as Shermer recommends. And this is a good conversation between Shermer and author/archeologist Wengrow. I'm about 60 minutes in, but don't see anything impolite happening from either party. I don't think Wengrow is feeling too great. He has a cold and made it online anyway - hey, thanks, right? The burden is on Wengrow to be persuasive, of course. But I think he's quite so, and I also empathize as a fellow researcher and scholar with the uphill battle that sometimes occurs in trying to help someone who doesn't know much about the depths of debate and controversy in your field, and is asking questions that are simplistic and filled with so many assumptions, i.e. "what about the psychopaths and sociopaths?" etc. I research historical problems in psych theory - so what is a "psychopath" and "sociopath" in ancient society? These are modern constructs premised upon murderous non-conformity to today's social rules. Dawn of Everything reveals substantial evidence that there have been many social systems in ancient history that were neither warlike nor murderous. Shermer speaks at times from a particularly Hobbesian view that Wengrow certainly doesn't share, and the evidence appears much more with Wengrow, IMHO. But I do appreciate the conversation and feel sad that other listeners see it as some sort of competition and want to vote about who's "better." I don't think that's what happening here at all. Read the book and decide for yourself. Kudos to Shermer and Wengrow both for taking the time.
What a beautiful comment to find online in our times!
Nicely expressed. What a pity such comments are apparently so rare. Our only hope is goodwill towards each other.
How refreshing. Both the talk, and your insightful comment. Thank you. Faith in humanity restored for one more hour.
Well said.
😊
If I look back on how many times our knowledge of the hunter gatherer days has changed since I was in school, I feel like I've been fooled during my history classes in school. I studied and was rewarded for falsehoods. There is certainly ambiguity in scoring tests when most answers are uncertainties presented as facts in the educational system. We should always be sceptical when we think we know and understand history.
Much of it at are certain of
May I ask what you feel you were mislead about? Im struggling to understand what "common ideas" David is disputing
I wish there were more people as civilised and intellectual as these guys.
And wrong. Sumerian cities were ALL fortified...and warlike in social domination. Since the beginning of recorded civilization hierarchal social organizations have been organized for war activities. And have always overpowered non-hierarchal social organizations. American Indians are an observable demonstration of his simplistic thinking...He is simply ignoring the dynamics of human nature. Someone will always organize to get what they want. And it has ALWAYS been hierarchal.
@@michael4250what did I say that doesn't agree with that?
@@HardHardMasterThat a non-hierarchal social organization is sustainable in the face of a hierarchal one that wants its resources. History has proven that a fallacy.
@@michael4250 that's not what I said.
A note. Living on the Greek Island of Sifnos 74 to 84 I found the mostly illeterate older populace had a far higher memory than literate people. By at least a hundred fold & probably far higher. Jarred made breakthroughs & so far I find this work fascinating but not completely convincing in its conclusion. But I need to read the book. Sifnos, by the way, is a matriachial society. I believe this is rare or almost singular in Greece.
I'm about a fourth of the way through Graeber & Wengrow's book, so I was really happy to see this interview, which was excellent.
It’s crazy how a little bit of literacy can impact one’s perception of this interview. Those of us who read books can understand what’s being said… what a radical notion.
Did you have to read the transcript of the interview in order to understand what was being said?
@@Skiddoo42 Shermer and David kept talking over each other. Very difficult to understand.
@@solosailor8799 I didn't think so, but the mood was off. Wengrow is sick and Shermer is unfamiliar with the subject matter... which isn't shocking, the subject is historical revision, but Wengrow, sick, doesn't come off as the most gracious teacher of a multilayered conversation in multiple disciplines.
@@Skiddoo42 yes, something was off.
I’m about a quarter through the book, and found it heavy going, but this great interview has given me renewed interest, so many thanks to Michael and David for a great discussion!
@Paul Gauthier ... and engrossing. Excellent read. Though I admit, it'll take another couple reads to fully absorb.
I enjoyed the interview/conversation. Wengrow sounds like a very intelligent man and I found him convincing.
The framing at the start by Mr Shermer made me wonder about the difference in behavior in New York versus Tokyo. While Tokyo has its issues the overall character is peaceful with a great deal of considerate for others and very low nearly nonexistent violence.
At one point, it looked like Wengrow was going to kick off. But the conversation then meanders into respectfulness and is enjoyable, as normal with Mr Shermer
Shermer seems to be defending Hancock at the beginning. Wild!
OK, I made it all the way through. A few cups of coffee and mute the headphones when he blows his nose.
Snark aside, extremely interesting ground premise that there is no ONE way or ONE PATH for human societies.
I had taken on board J. Diamond’s hierarchy of group by size and found this to be a very compelling case to understand that we, as humans, are just not simple or predictable enough to fit models like that.
Great podcast Mr Shermer, David is a very interesting guy. I love the way he communicates his knowledge of pre history. Fascinating
Kudos to both of them actually. Shermer had a tough job being both a Steven Pinker fanboy and a kind host to this guest. But he balanced it well. David Wengrow, except for not letting Shermer finish his questions, was a gentle giant in this interview.
Thank you for posting this interview. Important dialogue...is an understatement.
Any author who claims everyone believes a certain thing or thinks a certain way until he came along to enlighten you is not usually worth reading.
However - having listened he’s not one of those. Very interesting talk.
I often ride my bike up to the painted caves above Santa Barbara. This whole topic is the most interesting area for me. Writing came so late, and so many studies of things like religion are completely limited to the very recent times when writing existed. Before that we have cave art, designs on tools and weapons, burial rituals, etc. that don't have a clear narrative. But language/speech goes possibly goes back to homo erectus according to some anthropologists (and linguists like Daniel Everett). What were they thinking and talking about? And what do the painted caves images mean? Of course after climbing San Marcos road and Painted Caves road, my brain isn't thinking too deeply about anything.
My take away from this is the authors are arguing for the duality or dialectical nature of societies. There are potentialities across the spectrum from hierarchy to flat forms of organising and that these can alternate even within a single group or society.
As a writer, the notion of using images to represent and communicate meaning is intriguing. It actually sounds a lot more creative and fun than letters and words. I wonder if this accounts for the emergence and popularity of emojis in today’s culture.
Chinese, and by extension Japanese, are literally based on it
@@HardHardMaster yes! And weren’t our letter shapes also?
I agree that emojis are a really interesting parallel, they're replacing physical gestures, showing that language doesn't limit itself to sounds, and gradually become codified as a complement to writing. memes are similar. I think it shows us the mechanism of transition from spoken to written language in a really interesting way
As a painter I agree. Words, seem unable to even address, say, the 'hard' problem of consciousness. Fortunately it has been conclusively dealt with in Rembrandt's late self portraits.
Also music and dance.
I'm late to this, but what a great conversation! Good job, Shermer!
I dont think im like your typical fans.. But i listen to every podcast and I love the topics and the guests! 🖤 take care
David is a good debater.
Is it a coincidence or what, because it seems like every time I watch something with Shermer in it he always gets in a comment about people who don't pull their weight. Which he did here around 35:35 . I think perhaps people grew up in societies where it was a pleasurable thing to participate, and no one did it for gain or profit or to show others up, so maybe they did not worry about the "bums" because there was enough natural abundance that no one really though about it. Those who wanted to got together and thought up ways to push around giant stones, and to me that seems like the social part of religion. The artifacts and dimensions of something in nature that was not specially primarily natural - but war forged by intelligence ... as much of a different kind of thing as the heavy elements were from the original hydrogen and helium in the universe.
A Horizontal structure of society is stronger in community but weaker to external threat due to having a more trusting acceptance of others, usually due to infection more so than violence but one usually precedes the other in the endless spin cycle that is human civilization.
Good interview but I am pretty sure David had no idea who Michael was haha
Yeah that beginning was pretty sketchy but it was beautiful how quickly they established themselves in the context of their shared interests.
Don't let overly sensitive Shermer fanboys discourage you from watching after reading their comments , crying that this thoughtful man is being "passive aggressive".. in fairness he probably eye rolled at the "skeptic" pin when he saw it..
I'm wondering if it's some 'Mericuns discovering English academics for the first time.
What do you call constant interrupting and ignoring questions - but then when he gets the floor he fails to do anything with it?
Wengrow is The Light and The Way -- here to take Humanity forward into a new path of Utopian Anarchism. Civilization has corrupted the innate goodness of man, man. The entire human population needs to get high on shrooms and war will cease to exist, man.
Lord Jesus Christ, protect me from people who think they know what you want. 🙏🙏🙏
This is the danger in objective morality. Thinking you don't have to ask others what they think, because you *know* what is right.
@@someonenotnoone The only objective reality is the one you have yet to discover.
@@CandidDate Please, go on.
Wengrow's narrative isn't significant as an anthropological argument but rather as a political statement. It is really a critique of civilization and hierarchy. It fits neatly into the post colonial narrative and postmodern critiques of hierarchy. Yet. organization and hierarchy has to always be inferred from relics and there is always the possibility of confirmation bias. On the issue of stageism, Wengrow seems to be on firmer ground. But, again, this is politicized as far back as Rousseau. The underlying moralism is what I find offensive. It is always easier to criticize where the record is clearer. In the end one will agree or disagree with Wengrow based on one's moral beliefs of Man's inherent violent or peaceful nature.
In the end of what? LOLOL
There’s an interesting dynamic that happens whenever an uneducated, practically illiterate population hears an educated man speak with authority on a topic he’s spent decades researching.
What they’re mistaking for condescension is the sound of a man who’s actually studied a subject having to respond to the popular theories which fail when tested against the evidence.
These same folk who whinge about Wengrow’s tone, being those who listen to Michael Shermer, surely haven’t had similar problems with similar tonality when it was Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins.
Just say it, you don’t like it when someone who knows more than you introduces evidence against your dogmatic worldview. If he was chipper about it you’d call him blythe. If he were (appropriately) angry about it you’d call him overly emotional. How about you hold yourself to a fraction of the standard you hold him.
I think Shermer has a genuine inquiring mind and would love to find someone who knows more than he does, but when he tried to navigate to the limit of this understanding of this subject, Wengrow doesn't put-out, to use a rude term. He is constantly evasive and interrupting ... as someone who would love to understand what he is saying and is a believer in different social and political stable modes I was listening carefully to pick up on his ideas, and he did not put anything out there. Why do you think people interview authors or go to book lectures ... they are willing to take the subordinate position and hope the person has something to offer. I think Wengrow is a kind of narcissist who just loves the sound of his own voice. Assuming I missed something, can you timecode a link to where you think he explains his theory?
@@justgivemethetruth 20:56 I literally just went to a random place in the interview and listened to Shermer ask a question and get a well worded response. Now you: find a moment in this interview where Wengrow contradicts Shermer AND is wrong for doing so. Feel free to add whatever anecdotal points you like that will contradict this Oxford scientist’s considered words on a subject he’s spent his entire career studying.
Edit: furthermore, try reading his works. The world isn’t as simple as “he who sounds the nicest while talking is the one who knows the most.” Seriously, check your emotions and try engaging with the actual work.
@@addammadd
Sorry, not gonna do that. It's an opinion issue. I would not be watching if I were not interested in the subject and the author, but he really made himself annoying, until about the last 10 minutes. I don't think he revealed anything but promises and handwaving about his book. I have no reason to see interruption or say he interrupted if he did not, and it was constant, and always right as Shermer asked a great question.
I notice you left yourself and out to argue anything I say - so why should I waste my time?
> find a moment in this interview where Wengrow contradicts Shermer AND is wrong for doing so.
You should be smacked for such obvious trolling, not to mention your name.
@@justgivemethetruth you simply don’t have an intelligent response.
@@justgivemethetruth It's interesting that you would paint Wengrow as a narcissist who loves the sound of his own voice. I'm curious if you have any internal biases or cognitive dissonances that would lead you to paint him in such a way? I think that a good way to understand what Wengrow is saying is to pick up the book; get the information straight from the horses mouth as it were.
Interesting, nuanced conversation. Funny, I don't see the fundamental conflict or arrogance so frequently cited in the comments. Just spitballing, could some of us have a kind of visceral reaction to the accent? MY bias probably comes from a negative reaction to Diamond on my part, GG&S seeming pedantic and bloviating so maybe I was prejudiced towards Wengrow. Anyway if I hadn't dived into the comment thread WHILE listening, I don't think I'd have perceived any conflicts in this excellent interview.
Well, the other author was a very famous American anthropologist so hopefully the ideas are more powerful than the British accent is
The book does have some fasinating insists into early structures of societies. but the Authers spend a huge amount of time criticising earlier historians for imposing their own political biases on early sosieties. Then doing exactly the same them selves.
If you read these, Merry Christmas and keep up the great work, Michael!
new to this channel. having listened to this interview and read many comments, I agree that David Wengrow comes off as strangely passive aggressive. the host comes off as unaffected by that and curious, gracious.
that said, having read half the book being discussed, I think it’s brilliant, provocative and engaging.
just judging it by its often unserious (Monty Pythonesque?) sub-chapter titling, it kind of reflects the authors’ Homo ludens kick/thesis.
here’s an example subtitle from chapter 5 pg 192. they’re in bold caps in the book:
IN WHICH WE CONSIDER ‘THE STORY OF THE WOGIES’- AN INDIGENOUS CAUTIONARY TALE ABOUT THE DANGERS OF TRYING TO GET RICH QUICK BY ENSLAVING OTHERS (AND INDULGE OURSELVES IN AN ASIDE ON ‘GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL’)
etc
My favorite aspect of the book is the level of derision you can tell radiates from the authors via their subheadings.
Someone shat in his socks as a lad, and clearly, he's not quite recovered.
There's a button on the mic to turn it off when coughing or blowing your nose. Just a little advice...
It was intended as a display of contempt.
@@modvs1
No kidding, for a guy that spends his life studying human behavior to be so blatant about it - what a jerk.
Bask, unworthy one, in the glorious effluence of his nostril region. He is All, the Way & the Word. All that emanates from his being is a blessing to Humankind.
Great discussion - I first came across Wengrow on Novara's podcast and I thought he was pretty left-leaning, but more reasonable here.
Graham Hancock...'I read one...it was entertaining but that was when I was about 15' - ouch!
Not his finest interview moment.
Every time that Shermer mentioned Hancock, Wengrow just ignored him or changed the subject. It's almost as if these mainstream experts are united in a conspiracy to silence Graham and disregard his work.
Yeah this kind of disregard is what Hancock is talking about I imagine 😅
Yeah his Martian civilization book was a really fun read.
he argues that Göbekli Tepe is only 11-12000 years old at most but he can't explain the imagery there....I'll go with Graham!
Fascinating and brings good context to the outlandish claims of some. Outlandish claims however do spark interest and response to evidential anomolies 🙏thanks guys
around 17:10 mammoth tusks. He suggests that there would have been tons of meat as if these were kills. Perhaps the tusks were found and the mammoths were already dead.
The Civilizing Process is a book by German sociologist Norbert Elias. - Wikipedia
The Chalice and The Blade: Our History, Our Future is a 1987 book by Riane Eisler. - Wikipedia
I once heard a european complain about how european society was very unjust and harsh.
Your guest was thoughtful and sharp. Thanks
Survival of the most-cooperative. Our flexibility is the secret-sauce.
Very hard to stay with the discussion with David.
Congratulation Mr. Shermer, My respects to you, sir.
Someone would have to pay me to read the Triumph of Christianity, lol.
Why would it be bizarre to posit that early civilizations were matriarchal? Can it ever be conceived of?
Most tribes probably were anarchistic.
Being constrained by the natural necessity for survival (can't leave cause you risk dying on your own) isn't anti-anarchistic.
Tribes would have had many rules, but also people probably weren't often coerced to stay within the tribe, they stayed in the tribe cause as a necessity for survival, and that's where their family and friends were, but that necessity doesn't deny choice by dictate.
That doesn't work in more dense populations because unknown and untrusted peoples keep running into each other, so borders form around groups to form an ingroup and outgroup, as a means of negotiated peace keeping.
If anarchism were to succeed, it must do so by other means, as the environment we live in is not the environment of the past.
This guy is extremely passive aggressive. Psychodar is ringing off the charts.
May I ask why you feel that? A handful of concrete examples would probably help me to see why someone might feel that, if you would.
@@staninjapan07 Don't expect anything meaningful from him - anyone who labels someone as psycho based upon his triggered sense of passive aggressive is an idiot!
@@veridicusmaximus6010 lol
Well, he has seen what you have written - I can infer this as he has responded to you - so now I just wait to see whether I get something, too.
@@staninjapan07
Haha ... it seems odd that anyone would miss all these constant signs - blowing nose, constant interrupting, unresponsive answers, that guy is a mess. It makes me wonder about Graeber.
Wengrow doesn't seem to lay out and make a case, he just talks. And of course interrupts constantly. Personally, Wengrow seems like a right AH, at least in the way he interacts.
He interacts like a typical scholar, stuck in his own reality that seems constantly under attack from lesser minds with greater authority in terms of popularity. It's a bit of a paranoid, contentious corner to paint oneself into... but that shouldn't indicate to anyone that he's wrong or doesn't know what he's talking about. As this conversation proceeds they both really start to groove, from what I've seen at the 50 minute mark.
So much of what Dawn of Everything is, really tears down a lot of long-held conventions... the cases are laid down there, but it's over a thousand pages and took years for the two authors to compile, debate and research. It really serves to underscore how frequently we have to interrupt our way of thinking about these things when you see how much of the history we have been taught sets us up for failure when trying to communicate about much of anything.
To be fair does Shermer compare professional astronomers to notable flat earthers like he compared this professional archaeologist to Hancock, a man who wrote about Martian civilization in the same way he writes about the antediluvian world. I can understand why he might come across as “combative” at the beginning due to that rather unkind comparison but outside of that, the discussion is great.
@@seanbeadles7421 It's ironic that Wengrow is being called an "AH" in this post... I've never heard a skeptic nor an atheist come across any other way... EXCEPT WHEN I DO IT... lol
They must be onto something by some of the opposition he spoke of, I'll have to put this into my reading list.
The condescension is palpable.
Your remark seems condescending!
@@veridicusmaximus6010 _Trolling-_ par excellence!
@@modvs1 Ironic hypocrisy - par excellence!
@@veridicusmaximus6010 Chthonic colostomy: pour jouissance!
@@willmercury I prefer a heavenly colostomy for enjoyment! Thanks!
Merry Christmas Mr Shermer and chums!😂👍🇬🇧
We (in the US) prohibit smoking on airplanes and indoor restraunts for health related issues, but I don't see truckers lining up at or crossing the border to protest these regulations. Why not? The US government issued Covid mandates and control measures for health related issues same as smoking bans. What's the difference? Correct me if I'm wrong, but smoking is a "freedom," or a "right" too? So, where do "freedoms" and "rights" end? Do we allow truckers to draft and enforce public health policies?
27:30 To hike and haul, or to load a boat and row? 28:08 ++ The Kelp Highway.
Weingrow never answered Schermers question about how the Gobekli tepe animal
bas reliefs were carved into the stone. What kind of process or tool was used? It’s kind of critical to know.
Im struggling to understand what "common knowledge" david is disputing 😔 i dont feel like he's saying anything contrary to what most people today believe. What am i missing?
Wow, this comment section is toxic… Great conversation! Thank you, Michael and David!
Thank goodness at about the hour mark, a little after they settle down and have a pretty decent talk.
Perhaps someone can help me understand what "established ideas" David is rebuking? I've been listening to interviews with him for a while now and can't help but feel that his views are largely outdated. This would be profound 50 to 100 years ago, but to say that people don't recognize that there have been structured civilizations before colonization is grossly inaccurate. For an extremely intelligent man, David seems to not have a good grasp on time. Obviously the agricultural revolution isn't the same as what we call revolution today. Ofcourse it took many generations to foster. Furthermore, he seems to compare hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution to the mare blink of an eye we have since written history. But even during which, humans have "rethought" social structures at least half a dozen times!
There are structures and people areas in Basque that are among the oldest uninterrupted lineages in all of mankind, even their language is beyond Ancient in origin and has more in common with Eastern Slavic and Sanskrit than anything remotely Latin. I would venture a guess that they were the first civ in Europe proper, but were very remote and held onto their insular culture for an Extremely long time. They are from Spain and France, yet their culture is wholly unique and nothing like the rest of the world around them. We are eventually going to find some really amazing pockets of different ways of Human life. I mean, learning to carve stone with ease would be invaluable to human kind as if you get 10 feet underground the temperature stabilizes to a much more manageable level during an ice age...however, this kind of society can be completely eradicated and all of their history erased by a single earthquake, landslide, or eruption. I am willing to bet we have gone from only having fire to carving stone with relative ease dozens of times only to be set back centuries by a single natural disaster. Civilization after all, is a MAJOR evolutionary step in human existence. A Human individual is a much different organism than a Human Family, which is far less complex than even the next highest civil system.
My wife gifted me The Dawn Of Everything for Xmas this year. Thought I’d zoom up to satellite altitude and get the lay-of-the-land first … a good overview sense of the book and it’s reviewers … to assist my efforts to better understand its contents and context.
So when I found this Michael Schermer interview, I thought, “Great, what a wonderful way to get started.”
However, I must admit that I found the author’s manner, tone, body language, fidgeting, nose blowing, scalp picking, and inability/unwillingness to maintain sincere eye contact … to be seriously off putting.
Especially when combined with his snarky hauteur.
While Michael is very self-controlled; calm, still, respectful, earnest, and maintains a very centered manner.
David would appear to sit atop his own hierarchy … “I’m clearly the smartest guy in the room” kind of energy and attitude.
I’m 70 years old. Been around academia and academics all my life. Nothing new about this kind of intellectual snobbishness.
Well done Michael. You are the class act here.
Well lots of very clever people are a bit socially awkward. Nothing unusual there.
I always found Grabber’s intellectual snobbery rather comical and enjoyable. He’s fighting for the common person in many ways & trying to take concrete action as opposed to looking down from the ivory tower.
Funny that aesthetics and personality quirks are what you find as evidence of who to trust.
@@MarvinRoman not sure who that’s directed at, but I don’t see anyone referencing trust. It’s a discussion of what’s “off putting”, which I interpret like entertaining or enjoyable to read/listen to (as opposed to trustworthy).
I'm 68 pops, maybe you'd be better with a radio? What you and others are doing is needlessly judgmental and irrelevant to the discussion. Besides Wengrow is fielding some questions where he needs to keep a straight face so as not to further upset the more credulous among Schermer's audience.
Chronically poor social communication by David. I can barely listen to this.
Might have something to do with you rather than David!
@@veridicusmaximus6010 Hey... I completely agree 👍
@@veridicusmaximus6010
If that was the case why would there be so many comment with the criticisms.
Are you good at everything that other people expect? Eh, Keppner 🐈⬛
DW needs to think beyond within the academy. Step outside. Take more steps. Keep going...
I can’t find your interview of Bart Ehrman. When did it take place ?
Bright guy but quite arrogant and at times almost hostile. Hat off to Shermer for enduring the stench of snark. Intelligence is no replacement for manners.
D.A., J.D., NYC (lawyer / writer /atheist)
well put. I concur.
Indeed.
There's just something not right about that guy. He was evasive and defensive, and then preemptively offensive. From the very first question he never answered.
This is how a civil discussion is had. People can't always agree on everything. Besides this man obviously is having a cold and there seems to be an audio delay in the call.
I don't see any impoliteness or snarkiness.
Ahh yes a lesson on arrogance by a man who lists his law degree and religious beliefs on a CZcams comment unprompted to prove he’s smart.
Psychopathy is increasing because psychopaths have a survival advantage.
That' is pure conjecture.
Michael Shermer - You've done a ton of very interesting interviews, but why is it you have your microphone and screen out of alignment with your camera. It's really irritating and off-putting to see you constantly looking to the side and never making eye contact with your guest or your audience. Is there a reason you do that? Do you notice it? That should be number one in terms of setting up for a videoconference shouldn't it?
A case has been made concerning generation cycles causing shifts in political structures that cycle around to a reset period (collapse). Also, consider the causes and circumstances that may alter the trajectory of sociological evolution. Different outcomes would come from a raid removing most of the adult male population than a natural disaster or plague removing most of the total adult population, or different outcomes as a response to the irresistible influx of immigrants coming from a single culture or an influx of multiple cultures.
Image systems as communication - you just described classical mnemonics.
brilliant convo.
Well, in the present we have tendencial igualitarian societies like the scandinavian countries for instants. And those countries maybe not the most populated but even so have alot of people.
The existing model, like all models, is a simplification. But on what basis does he conclude societies were egalitarian in some seasons and hierarchical in others? That's absurd. Societies don't dramatically change the status of persons month to month. That assertion is based just on the fact that structures exist that could have been winter communal dwellings. There is no record of their social structure, only a few buildings that suggest communal living. He states that there was "no patriarchy" as well, again with essentially no basis for the conclusion. Archeology is not sociology. He's a contrarian without evidence. Then again the idea that before agriculture "everyone lived in societies of equals" is just stupid as well. No, there are always hierarchies, in all species of apes. Chimps don't farm, but they have hierarchies.
I wonder if he’s ever heard the hypothesis that Homo sapiens sapiens might have learned some types of social interaction from wolves as they went through the process of domestication starting probably 30,000 years ago?
He lays into Pinker a little harshly and Diamond too. Cherry pickers? The Better Angels felt like the absolute anithesis of cherry picking to me. Caveat: I havent read any Wengrow. Anyway - Help! The grownups are fighting again !!
So nobody is going to talk about the thumbnail?
Amazing that Shermer leads with Jared Diamond, who is a joke in this field, who got Rapa Nui (Easter Island) laughably wrong, and now Shermer posing his completely un-empirical chimerical numerical dyads notion... Wengrow has patience.
Wengrow: "Yeah it's a good one. Do you believe a single word of what you just read?" nice
So. What's wrong with anarchy? People are so programmed to have a negative reaction to the word...just as government intended.
Well there are many different versions of ‘anarchy’ which makes discussion complex for a start
@@fainitesbarley2245 that's true, but when the word comes up, there is almost universally a negative reaction to it. I am technically an anarchist, but prefer the word voluntaryist because people don't understand what an anarchist is. I wish more of them realized government is responsible for more human death and suffering than any other entity on earth...including anarchists. I wish people had the same negative reaction to the word "government."
Well it's a temporary state between a functional secioty and fascism. So that.
If I had to say what is wrong with anarchy it is that a competing group that is willing to endure even a little bit of regimentation and hierarchicalization will come along and kill, enslave the anarchists and take their women and incorporate their genetics.
When the Orientals come to take your stuff, be sure to call them voluntary militias. Who needs paved roads, public education or laws??? Purge!!!!!
Phew! So glad David's a nose-blower, not a cherry-picker. Great tutorial on the Condescension Process. I hear he keeps the unibrow of the Black Athena as a relic in his white saviour collection, too. What a guy!
Sounds pretty condescending!
46:00 - Jeez, Hierarchy In The Forest ... $297 ... even the Kindle version is $31.
He went to town on that tissue
An interesting take similar to this is "The End Of The Megamachine" by Fabian Schiedler ... a really brilliant book. Fabian would make a great interview.
I Fort the notion that earlier homo sapiens (200 thousands years ago) as cognitive as we are nowadays wasn't a common science belief anymore.
This guy comes across as very condescending and sometimes passive aggressive. It makes what should be an interesting interview quite difficult to get through.
Agreed
Dido
Pretentious for sure
Yes, I believe his photo is in the dictionary under “ Smug”
I agree. Shermer is a dummy
If I may offer one bit of unsolicited advice it would be to break yourself of saying, "Right" before launching into your _non sequuntur_
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
1:17:00 Madison quote
As a counter narrative of pre historical grouping and behavioural modelling this is not very convincing… his use of the word ‘scientific’ in many instances here seems more linguistically strategic than conceptually compelling… at least to my ears :)))
I can buy Wengrow's theory that human social organization is flexible, plastic, like our brains - but what about the world that we all share now, or the worlds that certain groups shared as you go back in time? There is a scarcity gradient that must have affected how rising populations interacted with each other when competing over resources. Or population growth rate - the edict of the Christian religion to be fruitful and multiply and spread over the Earth ... guaranteed to cause war.
Solid points. Maybe they weren't competing with each other as much with nature, just for subsistence? I guess I don't see organized military hierarchy as a natural pattern. Certainly a predatory, warrior class is one effective structure. But, one has to think of it (will it automatically arise?) and it has to survive the negative reaction the subjected masses would have had to imposition of non-contributing leadership groups. Is is possible we look at carnivores and herbivores and automatically imagine that "social" structure for ourselves? But there's no subspecies of intrinsically more passive, less formidable people ready and waiting to subjugate themselves to the freerider bully class, the way zebras are intrinsically less fit for fightning than lions. Without strucures to support them, the bully class would need to demonstrate value to be tolerated.
@@MarkKrebs
> I guess I don't see organized military hierarchy as a natural pattern.
You sure see it in every civilization. No matter how free or democratic you want to be, the prime directive has got to be survival. You also have to look at the structure of societies where the aristocratic class has access to education, the lessons of history and psychological technologies such as religion, tradition, ritual, and a richer more nutrient rich diet. In WWI it seems to me that they fought maybe mostly just to decrease the surplus male population ... thousands marched out in front of machine guns and artillery to no result except death. And in Vietnam it is widely perceived that the American government wanted to get rid of poor people and minorities.
> Without strucures to support them, the bully class would need to demonstrate value to be tolerated.
You mean like they do now, bringing the whole planet to an end? ;-)
@@justgivemethetruth yes regarding bringing the whole planet to an end, Vonnegut said it best in cat's cradle. Our power exceeds our good sense, and that could be the end of us. I was just wondering though if we've invented it. Sure it's everywhere NOW, as you noted, but was it in early civilizations? Trying to condense my thesis: now we have more spare food and more powerful weapons than we used to. That enables a psychopathic genotype to succeed more than perhaps it would have in early epochs. We evolved a feature that's useful in small doses and with limited power but now-days? Not a good idea.
@@justgivemethetruth regarding, "fought just to decrease spare male population," I don't think that makes sense.
@@MarkKrebs
Well said.
I listened to the book and wondered, what's their take on the enlightenment and rationality. In Graeber's book Debt the idea seemed to be that there is "ethical debt" that is better, while "rational debt", people giving their money to somebody to gain soemthing, is bad. I just can't understand the idea. This book really didn't discuss the difference between rationality and tradition or superstition either. But, yeah, I enjoyed both books, as "crazy" as they were.
i would argue that they would follow contemporary evidence showing how human beings are rarely, if ever convinced of an perspective exclusively bssed on rationality. neuroscience shows us that emotionality and rationality are always entangled in our perspectives, and the englightenment ideal of rationality is a false premise/ impossibility and thus a poor ideal to hold onto. this would also play into their argument regarding forms of domination. charisma is one of 3 forms of domination, wherein, if its by itself (i.e. not accompanied by thr other twl fkrms violence and burocracy), leads to societies / politics in which people engage in direct democracy and rhetoric. persuasion includes a variety of interlaced methods of communication, from gestures to humor to rationality to engaging emotions. its part of us, and genrrally i think we should be wary about limiting our wholeness :)
as for the enlightenment, ch. 2 makes a bit of a mockery of the enlightenment as people who couldnt really imagine classless, class reduced, or less hierarchal societies that dont utilize violence as a form of domination, might be, yet are still trying to wax poetic about this and stumble and fall on their faces. imagine if thesr french guys instead went and integrated in larger numbers to wendat and iroquios groups bc they believed in these ideals, and resisted colonization...
@@rainbowmonkMC Yeah, but we do have institutions and organizations that are geared towards rationality., like, say, armies, banks or supermarket chains. The irrational ones will lose to the rational ones most of the time. Or at least when their rationality gets tested.
Debt, for example, is a strictly controlled rationality test. Be irrational and you'll lose your money. The fact that this may sound ridiculous in the light of the banking crises we have suffered doesn't change the big picture.
People, on the other hand, are not particularly rational - unless they, too, have to be, if the stakes a really high, or if they are in a familiar situation, like buying bread here instead of there.
Anyway rationality is something I try to teach my children. "It's sometimes impossible but still far better than always doing what others do or believing in tradition or superstition."
@@Atomisti we can both improve our rationality and consider things rationally, and reflect on tradition and superstitions, AND engage our emotions, engage in the human creative art of story telling, myth making, and thus meaning making. we have a deep need to do both.
@@Atomisti so rather than say "the irrational ones lose to the rational ones most of the time" - is very wrong. first off, it only considers the last 200 or so years of history (before tjat goverance was rarely run on rationality - im open to hear examples on the contrary), secondly ot omits how violence enforces rationality so it assumes rationality is winning without guns and tanks and survaillance systems these days. and thirdly, it falsely assumes that banks and the military only run on rationality, as if the Iraq war for example was a rational choice rather than a highly emotional one, or as if the decision to bail out the banks after the 2008 financial crash was the most rational decision to bail out the banks! when in fact it was rationally proven that the economy would have been boosted faster AND the banks wouldnt habe gone bankrupt if the same amount of money was given to working poor people with morgages to pay them off! (and also that all those bankers and investors before the crash that were engaging in market fraud and absurd speculation were only rational). come on man !
@@rainbowmonkMC I'm just analyzing different parts in the equation: in addition to "people" there are institutions, both institutions and people are sometime rational and sometimes not. Both try to be when they have their skin in the game and they have a good cahce of succeeding, if they have plenty of information, time, or other necessary resources and so forth. If you don't try to find any rational structure behind it all, the whole exercise is not worth doing.
The banking crises are examples of how rationality isn't the only force or how rationality can "betray" us, but I didn't claim it to be either. I explicitly wrote that the "big picture" is still based on rationality. If it wasn't, you wouldn't keep your money in a bank.
Emotions were certainly something the western tradition disregarded too much after romanticism. One of the great reinventions was to bring them back - this time backed up by rational sciences.
@11:00, somply the bigotry of demanding physical evidence when genetics confirm same specie
How many?
If he says uh one more time……..
I'm not sold on this smug man or his theory.
11:12 Bigotry of low expectations.
David Wengrove is a professor of archaeology. Schemer is a multiple wannabe. Just remember how you laid put your stalls for the type of researchers you followed before it becomes painfully ironic to yourselves.
Pacific island-hopping. Kon-Tiki. Robert Schoch.
i think you are what you are missing shermer, is james c scott. the state is horrendous.
David immediately comes off like a jerk.
So I'm going to be very blunt. David Wengrow appears to be a condescending jerk. I will not be buying or reading that book.
Maybe you’ll change your mind after a diaper change.