Steven Pinker on rationality and its limits
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 05. 2024
- Freddie Sayers meets Steven Pinker.
Listen to the podcast version here: shows.acast.com/lockdowntv-wi...
Do we live in a rational world? For all the advances humanity has made over the years and centuries, it is difficult to escape the feeling that we live in irrational times. Or so leading psychologist Steven Pinker argues in his new book ‘Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters’. From cancel culture to online conspiracy theories, the Harvard Professor argues that we are forgetting how to reason and think clearly - two vital tools for the flourishing of mankind.
But is being irrational necessarily a bad thing? Are there certain scenarios in which it might be permissible? Speaking at the Art Workers’ Guild in London, Prof Pinker joined Freddie Sayers to discuss rationality and its possible limits. Our thanks to Professor Pinker for an enlightening discussion.
// Timecodes //
00:00 - 01:55 - Introduction: what is Steven Pinker’s definition of rationality?
01:55 - 03:35 - Are humans rational?
03:35 - 05:48 - Does Steven Pinker reject the rational - intuition binary?
05:48 - 11:47 - What about gut feelings, human chemistry? Should we junk them?
11:47 - 14:36 - Are some people more rational than others? Is Steven Pinker irrational?
14:36 - 20:18 - Are men or women the more rational sex?
20:18 - 23:33 - The 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign was hyper-rational, but they lost to Trump. Why is that?
23:33 - 25:51 - What about political experience and gut feelings, eg Bill Clinton?
25:51 - 27:58 - Human intuition vs algorithms
27:58 - 31:17 - How rational are social justice movements?
31:17 - 34:28 - Steven Pinker’s own attempted cancellation
34:28 - 36:35 - Has there been positive progress on free speech?
36:35 - 43:32 - Do conspiracy theories and national stories belong in the realm of myth?
43:32 - 46:23 - Should we eliminate myths, religions, and untrue stories altogether?
46:23 - 49:00 - Is Malcolm Gladwell cheating?
49:00 - 54:03 - Is there an evolutionary rationale for irrational beliefs?
54:03 - 57:40 - Are authoritarian COVID restrictions in Australia a form of extreme rationality?
57:40 - 58:09 - End
#UnHerd #FreddieSayers #StevenPinker
I follow Dr Pinker everywhere he goes….I am a huge fan….for obvious reasons….
Which obvious ones would those be?
Pinker bias
Very good conversation! It is always a pleasure listen Dr Pinker
I was always great in my job interviews.. Low level management..
Every interview made a big mistake... I was always looking for temporary work but swore I was interested in a career. I was there to learn until I knew enough to go out on my own.. Just an anecdote.. This guy is great!!
Great conversation👍 the World needs more of these conversations.
I just finished his book after reading the 340 pages in 6 days. It has changed how i think about a lot of things. For me it was like a self help course like Jordan Peterson`s books, because it made rethink what how I approached everything from eating to relating to other people. Some of the chapters are challenging, especially those about logic and probability, but they are well worth reflecrting on. I highly recommend the book.
Interesting topic, thanks Freddie
I liked his explanation of "gut feeling" and intuition... If it is based on knowledge it is more than gut feeling.. I often used a gut feeling to make needed rapid decisions in my business.. Without which I would have lost an opportunity... They were gut feelings based on a whole lot of experience..
Rest easy, at 16:35 they do finally get the hint and provide the professor with some water.
“A madman is not someone who has lost his reason but someone who has lost everything but his reason." -Chesterton
Ouch.
Chesterton is the most intelligent man who ever lived in Britain. That's why he's so aggressively buried. We are the kind of beings who murder the Socrates and Christs among us. Enlightenment materialism degraded the human spirit and brought about fascism and communism. Blood and Soil and Marx's utopia. Thomas More understood Utopia much better.
I like your idea.
You search the hat to fill the head.
@@mgenthbjpafa6413 did you make that up?
My take away, be as rational as possible, however since it is not rational to wait until I possess all knowledge before making a decision, do the best I can with what I have at the opportune moment. Wow, that was amazingly intuitive for a rational discussion!
Job interviews and recruitment criteria are useless (8mins into this)..can we now say with 100% certainty that HR departments are f.ing useless??
Cognitive psychology is around predictability and creating ever more complex measures that proves.....My first degree was in psychology and I read numerous experimental papers. When I followed up the research, I discovered that experimental conditions were continually being re-modelled until the premises of the research was justified. The reasons for the failed outcomes was never considered.
Psychology reduces experience to a 'thing'. 'Thingness' in and of itself is never critically analysed. I switched to analytical psychology and then philosophy. I can only speak for myself, but it was a far more enlightening and rewarding experience.
*Inside every psychologist is a mathematician/statistician just screaming to get out. Strangely, they aren't aware of that.
Well said. Thank God for Aristotle and Aquinas. And GK Chesterton.
All the students interested in "what makes people think" and how to help them leave at the end of year one as no one told them it would be all maths :-)
Fantastic, thank Freddie and Steven
Always enriching to hear Steven Pinkers thoughts.
Outstanding interview.
This does make me think about the simple power of presentation, a fantastic location for the subject, and smartly dressed with a charming audiance as opposed to two people saying exactly the same things but in scruffy clothes in a messy bed room with no audiance (I'd still listen but the feeling is definitely different)
Astute observation.
Great talk... I am surprised this did not get more likes.
The Hillary campaign was hyper-rational: it was predicated on her gender and the idea that it was her turn. They had irrational appeals to authority, such as the "17 intelligence agencies" and relied upon the power of elite institutions to manipulate the public rather than the power of rational argument (friends in journalism, universities, government insiders, social media etc). She spoke about the pay gap for crying out loud.
Pinker talks about the irrationality of debate tactics, being overbearing and commanding etc. but it's totally irrational to discount those things as of critical importance when selecting a leader. There was a now somewhat buried theatre piece that flipped the genders in the Trump/Hillary debates called "Her Opponent". The creators and New York audience thought that doing this would show how amazing Hillary would appear as a candidate if she were played by a male and how sexism against women hurt her. But once they saw the piece they realised that Trump was actually likable to them when he was played as a woman and they understood why he won. None of them really had the self-awareness to see that it was in fact THEM who were demonstrating sexism in their original assessment of Hillary as superior. It's totally irrational to discount human interactions and how we relate to one another in one's assessment of who would make a better leader because these are qualities that are required to lead people.
The man who believes himself rational wants to distill politics down to logical syllogisms and algorithms that decide the best course of action. But all of this is based on pre-rational decisions about which metrics one should measure. Is maximising GDP actually a good metric? Is maximising gender and racial equality of outcome a good metric? Is pointing to increased wealth coming with increase immigration actually a good metric? He believes in the censorship which won Biden the election - this is justified by the pre-determination that this would be the correct outcome and therefore irrationality from the other side must be (and was) censored. The rational reaction to such policies is reciprocation: I am now dedicated to doing the same to them if I have the chance to support such a thing because the outcomes of not doing so lead to irrationality and harm.
In short, I see the supposedly rational side appealing to rationality in a very limited sense and it seems more and more like a cloak for the enforcement of their preferences rather than a real commitment to facts, logic and reason.
How is predicating a political campaign on gender rational? That seems to be a mostly irrelevant factor to running a country.
@@nickshelbourne4426 Sorry, that was intended as sarcasm! Pinker said something like her campaign was "hyper-rational" because it was based in data, statistics and well-defined plans (or something like that).
It's a bit weird and perhaps even totally irrational to trust a well-defined plan coming from a politician. Even worse, statistics can represent the opposite of rationality if used to deceive (such as with the pay gap). Data may be meaningless without a set of values against which you judge the data. The political element is usually smuggled in with an assumed frame by which to interpret the data.
The last two years have shown how easy it is to override the rational.
No with the Pinker definition of "rationnal". The Power That Be used a considerable amount of knowledge to attain a specific goal : kill Liberty
@@mikekane2492 in the period of Aristote "raison" or logic was only a tool ("organum" in greek) for the mind to find the Truth. Now this tool (translated calculus in latin) has became the master of all rationalised minds all over the world. The Reason has begun to usurp the monopole of Truth and is now considered as the sole and only God governing man. In our dechristianzed civilisation Raison has took the place of Jesus ("I am the Truth"). But since 2 years we have seen thousands of scientists lying thousands of lies. Reason has killed the Truth to get to the super and last level and be God. Liberty is only possible with Truth and Love at it side. After the destruction of Truth during one century ("to every one his truth") we are observing since two years to the destruction of Liberty everywhere in the world and for the first time in "the nation of the Braves"
If we don't rebel against this invisible tyrant inside ourself the next step (which has already begun) will be the disparition of Love. A mind working under the control of the bio-computer reason or calculus is blind to the natural good feelings. And for me it is evident that Love cannot survive among us without true Truth and true Liberty.
Nice!
to say that government intervention in the economy is good because you looked at the effects of policies is a statement that no economist would make because any economist knows that you can't isolate the effects of those policies from other causes. Pinker would be pretty bad at diagnosing disease as well with such thinking
Brainless libertarian do you think you can have an orderly society without government playing a role in the economy?
The government is made up of people that carry with them the authority that the public has entrusted in them (best case scenario). Economies exist because people trade amongst one another. The same people that support the government create the economy, the government's role is to regulate that the trades remain within a framework that is considered "fair".
Todd Gardner there is no "the public"
Todd Gardner democracy allows 51% of the people to enslave the other 49%. which "public" are you referring to? the group who won? the group who lost? both?
I was disappointed and perhaps I missed the crucial section where they discussed using a dartboard
14:00 The correlation is 0.5 approximately. Very strong.
Rationality is in the thinking. Not in the debating tactics...
How rational am I? About 50/50 on a good day, but I’m conditioned to the overuse of feelings and intuition to make sense of my daily experience.
Oh, sous-titres en français. Merci.
6:02 When talking about business, we seem to live in a world when "by your gut" fast decisions are expected and preferred because waiting for the facts to make a rational decision is branded as "dithering" and considered to be a negative trait, and you can always get out of a quickly made, bad decisions later by making more bad decisions. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The most successful people combine both methods😉
You're actually making an argument against allowing ourselves to be manipulated by others' accusations.
"it's tough at the top"
@@sternamc919sterna3 The art of chaos.
for many decisions that need to be made, there are no available data. So then what?
There is a flaw of the definition of rationality given at the beginning: it assumes a goal is already present. But how do you pick a goal?
Your appetites/emotions do that for you.
Petros Syrak I certainly hope not
@@UGPepe How do you think a goal is set?
Petros Syrak based on values. Even the most primitive people are able and willing to go against their appetites and emotions for a higher goal in many circumstances.
@@UGPepe My comment to that would be that values (assuming they are actually operating) are, ultimately and at their very core, emotional experiences.
A book that offers a really good analysis (from a science-based neurological/neuroscientific perspective) of that is Damasio’s “Descartes’ Error”. If you’re interested in finding more about the subject I would highly recommend it.
Also, if you’re interested in a more classical philosophical approach, you could look up David Hume’s relevant work. A modern book that offers some relevant (and much simpler/easier-to-read) insight could be Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind” (although that is not the main subject of the book). Spinoza’s Ethics (parts 3-5) deal extensively with this, as well (although that can be a rather hard book to parse through).
Utterly brilliant interview.
Fascinating!
Am I wrong or was it Pinker who put out a video of himself dancing when trump lost? “Rationality”, huh?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought I read in Sapulsky's Behave that most decisions are precognitive, mostly determined in the limbic part of the brain even before the decision can be articulated in language emanating from the prefrontal cortex. We are not Vulcans; our rationality is very much influenced by our emotions.
In that I don't agree with Sapulsky a little. He doesn't think that free will exists because emotions basically dominate us, but that's only true statistically. Actually, there is some room for free will, it's just that we use it much less often than we think.
Steven is a very witty character.
A wonderful hour
In 1997 I arrived at the conclusion that all human behaviour can be explained by a simple two-part principle. I got there by asking myself a simple question. If most humans alive today are descended from survivors of war, and if the aggression used to survive those wars went unchecked and became self-destructive (as presumably it would), how would we deal with the surplus aggression should a war be delayed or even cancelled?
Sports help keeping surplus aggression controlled. Other creative activities like music, art, engineering also contribute to eradication of aggression. That is why societies that invest in educating from early ages have better control of aggression in society.
@gnorweb Humans did not lose their animalistic aggression instinct for territory, food, reproductive rights, but they have found ways to control them. Take a look at the few existing so-called 'primitive' human societies that do not rely on science and technology. Check how they solve those conflicts when negociation fails or is not accepted. Einstein warned us about the perils of using nuclear science for destruction, stating that WWIV would be fought with sticks and stones 😉.
@@aaronclarke7732 If aggression is learned rather that instinctive how do you explain the behaviour of toddlers. In kindergarten, especially during the first days in the "new environment", when frustated by competition for toys or attention they scream, hit, bite, slap, punch and push their peers and educators. Most parents can't believe that their little angels are capable of that sort of behaviour. The most common strategy of educators is to use a peaceful activity to calm down. But some of these young humans are quite difficult to educate.
I would have liked this more if the interviewer had asked Pinker one (preferably short) question at a time. As it was, I had usually forgotten his first question/point by the time he had got to his final question/point.
My intention in watching the video was to listen to Pinker, and I found myself wanting to speed up the lengthy questions/arguments made by the interviewer, but the CZcams speed adjustment requires going into a menu, and it would have been too much of a hassle. What he was saying was okay or even good, but he was taking too much time away Pinker IMHO.
I think for a job interview you should have a conversation between a person that is good at the job and the prospect, about the job. Or similar things, and the component that is about how productive they are, how lazy or how diverse their intelligence is is basically impossible to get out of an interview anyway other than by virtue of their knowledge or appreciation of the job and what its like ti do it well. unfortunately that is hard and expensive to do, but it should be done by people who want qualified personnel and it should be done openly and non corrosively such that you have a good relationship with a future employee. Beyond that I don’t think you can do much more than get rid of what doesn’t work. Or you could give the job to someone you know or something idk.
Thanks great!
the head to body ratio difference between them is astounding.
meaning you agree blindly?
@@noyb154 he’s talking about the fact that Pinker’s head is actually larger than his tiny body, whereas Freddie is the normal human ratio of 8-heads=body-height.
Or is it an illusion caused by his hair?
@@jefflerner7526 Hair has a role. I also think the gymnasium has too. Freddie has human proportions because he works out. Pinker, if he carries on, will be nothing but a head.
@@quentinnewark2745 funny
What rationality is is a philosophical matter with elements for psychology.
Depends on how see the big picture of the world.
Great idealist, rationalisation of intuitional guttering to algorithmic logic dependency to make social policy decision making to a path of data driven rationale!
Hmm...judgement reserved
Actually rationality is the apprehension of the interrelatedness of the final causes or natural ends of the different forms of life and how they cohere in our divine milieu. Rationalism is groundless and valueless without realistic philosophy or religion to guide it.
I think that’s evolution and moralism, not rationality.
Special thanks to Henry Cavill for hosting this conversation!
My gf laughed way harder on this. Stop trying to steal her please.
That’s not Henry Cavill
but why did Pinker fly on the Lolita Express? What's the rationale behind that?
Relevance?
Rationality is dependent upon a level of genuine understanding. As with 'logic', it cannot operate correctly until it is in correlation with the nature of how things exist, because this must necessarily be where the foundations for 'logic' emerge from..
spaceandmotion
Pinker says that Keynes never did say “When the facts change, I change my mind”. Big deal. As reported in the Irish Times,"[H]is Cambridge contemporary, the noted economist Joan Robinson, records him as saying: 'When someone persuades me that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?'" Very similar, really and the actual quote, if Ms. Robinson has it right, is really an improvement. It's surely not only a change in facts that provide a good reason for a rational person to change his views.
I think that "when the facts change I change my mind" is a poetic way of saying that when someone points out to me that I have a misunderstanding of the facts (i.e. I am wrong) then I change my mind.
"Poetic way"?
The interviewer cites the feminist writer, who claims that the feminist movement arose from an intuition. Well, the evidence, shows actual empirical sexism. I have researched prejudice, and there is no doubt about this. Just because a writer claims this, does not make it true.
Counter says 39 comments, but only 20 are shown, and none are any that I made earlier today. Of course one never knows who commits this vandalism, but any platform that permits it is unfit for use. CZcams truly is the FreeThoughtBlogs of 2021.
I always feel when listening to him that I have to listen 10 minutes for every 1 minute of actual insight. Most of it is fluff and presentation skills.
Astute observation.
Truth is a Person. Note how our intention and its effects upon life and others is the final arbiter of experience. We've driven the train of scientistic physicalism to the end of the tracks. The meaning of all material things as our bodies affirm.. is the person. Truth is a Person. I was reminded of that by Lennox the other day . A good reminder. And in 2015, Bell's theorem closed all the loopholes for physical determinism. The root of all "physical" systems and things is actually freedom. The past does not determine the future. Grace has returned to physics.
It’s rational to say that Boston and Cape Cod do not look abandoned above the first floor and never have looked that way for 21 years. It is not logical to make the same point. Rational presumes incentive that distorts logic. QED. Want photos and video?
Trading off costs and benefits is contingent upon the medium that is used to covey that information Steven. If social media is used within society then chances of presenting rational articulation will be almost zero. If conveyed in literate, print culture, the chances of conveying your message successfully and rationally is 100%. The medium is the message, and Prof Pinker needs to read 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' written in a book by Postman or understanding Marshall McLuhan.
16:53 Best example of self aware rational process is the person filling the water glass slowly and carefully while rock star Pinker talks. I have heard Steven's reasonings many times but not that bit of poise.
Thinking has limit
He starts with what I utmost dislike in philosophers : the belief that brain thoughts are beliefs
They may have lots of PhD , but they lack the most basic science as a fundation
I listened to Professor Pinkerton talking about English language and language generally. He said a couple of things that were just plain wrong that anyone who teaches English ought to know and then went on about Chomsky's highly debatable Universal Language theory as if it was fact, marvelling at how young children learn to put "s" on the ends of words to make them plural which is really no big deal when everything else a child learns is considered. I came to the realisation about what you say about lots of PhD.
My gut feelings on love were always wrong!!!
I little too much of "should be" from Dr. Pinker, with too little regard to "is it possible?".
Whoa, coming up in the world Unherd.
Feuerabend, Farewell to reason
I think Pinker is ignoring all the science regarding gut reasoning (the function of neurons in the gut), intuition, and other senses that feed us thoughts, sometimes subconsciously. Proponents of this science have been shown the door, from mainstream science, while "soft sciences," such as that in which Pinker specializes, are permissible, I suspect because of the unspoken rule that only naturalistic voices are allowed to speak out from the soft sciences (or any scientific field).
Pinker will likely classify the innumerable accounts of people's lives being saved, changed, etc. based on someone's "gut feeling" as anecdotal (which merely means "unpublished"). While technically correct, it's also true that people like Pinker control what is published as science. And to be fair, it's certainly difficult to say whether a specific account is verification of the idea that gut feelings are reliable or worthy of consideration, but it's really the whole body of anecdotes that make it interesting and scientific.
To hear a worthy alternative, I suggest giving folks like Rupert Sheldrake some of your time.
Could religious people be happier because there is a correlation between ignorance and happiness? As children we were generally more accepting of each other and less judgmental, but as we grew up and learned more our biases and prejudices grew. As children we were looking at the world through wide open eyes. I would love to hear his opinion on something as irrational as arguing in favor of a certain level of ignorance. Doesn't a certain level of personal ignorance make it easier to make decisions? Can't we sometimes be overloaded with too much information? After all when I go to the supermarket and buy a can of spaghetti sauce I would prefer to have trust in the system that what is in that can won't harm me instead of having to research everything about that product before I buy it. Aren't there occasions to recognize that we are ignorant about something and recognize that is okay to stay ignorant? After all who has the time to question everything?
I was a bias bias!!!
What struck me most about Prof Pinker is that he confuses an algorithm's prediction, which is no better than an averaging of inputs, with what an individual might do.
Read his book and it will all be clear. I have read it and have used it as a self help book to improve my life. If you use reason, you will generally make better decisions than if you only follow impulses, intuition and emotions.
For example, ask yourself : how do i spend my day. Are spending all this time on social media useful in relations to gthe goals I have in life etc. Use rationality and you will find lots of areas to improve on.
Needs to update his world view
AT 5:20 he comments on Malcolm Gladwell. No surprise there. The guy was then (in reference to the book that Pinker mentioned) and is now overrated. If you watched the recent debate that he did with Douglas Murray and Matt Taibbi, it was painful to listen to Gladwell attempt to 'debate'. He was ideological from the perspective of identity rather than being at all rational.
Prof. Pinker, to believe in someone, would you rather call on your rationality or your emotions ?
Why does everyone keep saying Segway instead of segue ?
Homophones
Is there some type of litmus test or super computer out there that scientifically proves whether something is rational or not rational? Or is rationality just an arbitrary opinion?
The lawrs of rationalitty aw noh woh we think. That's just my idear. The militree is disciplined as we should be. Aw we stupid? Norr,norr,norr. It's the lawrs that need tah change.
Pinker: I have shifted position from libertarian leaning to being more open to government regulation and social transfers.
Sayers: great... Next question...
Not taking sides, but that made me laugh, given UnHerd's generic positions 😉
Pinker’s answer was not deemed unherd, so Freddie decided to move on to the next question.
You have missed the point
@@redemrys5342 and you have seemingly missed the humour
@ page 94. Humour? No. Herd sneering, more like.
@@redemrys5342 ladies and gentlemen, we have found him: a man with zero humour. It's a light-hearted comment. Calm down.
2:30 I like Pinker, but he also annoys me sometimes. It's entirely clear that humans can often be spectacularly rational in our day jobs, especially people at the top of the pecking order. What's also clear is that as soon as we relax our vigilance or move outside of our comfort zone, batshit reigns supreme. Some people rarely relax their vigilance, and other people have never seen a rational thought they wouldn't prefer to avoid. Most of us can't avoid being at least _somewhat_ rational in our primary employment, so that's at least one major constraint for the bulk of the population.
Here here
We as a society always appeal to the higher authority in all we do. Ever the student and teacher simultaneously. The course of action is inevitable due to the nature of institutions of higher learning.
Nice man, but it was telling that when he looked for an example of irrationality he went to QAnon and how Trump lost the 2020 election, not Dem fantasies about how the Russians made Donald Trrump, their Manchurian candidate, president in 2016. He struck me as a slightly less manic version of a Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferer. We are definitely past peak Lockdown TV. I miss its glory days.
If you look into more of Stephen Pinker's work, I think you'll find that he is much more centrist than you assume.
shame yer stuck in that left vs right paradigm ...the enemy is not your left or right leaning neighbor..it's over reaching guvmint..I'm as apolitical as I can be..no fan of sleepy joe...nor trump...but have to remind you ..a obvious trump fan...that the whole corona virus sham was started with dj trump and faucy standing there at a podium wailing about "2 million dead if we do nothing" while likely telling their financial managers to buy stock in medical equipment ....leading to 15% unemployment and all the social and economic horrors that followed ..... all politicians...screaming chickens wailing at the sky...self serving thieves..all of them..that nancy woman wants to lay off federal employees who don't comply with a forced jab against the seasonal flu ....wreaking even more economic disaster.....My response to all that is...Politely GFY...
@@jyanasensei I hope you are right, Jordan. I will try to do so, if I can find the time.
@ steve beatty . No. It is economics that determines consciousness not rationality.
He spoke out quite clearly against some of the democrat irrationality in his recent interview with Peterson.
So this is where so much PC thought came from? His verbal gymnastics do not pass for reasonable, although probably meets his definition of rational.
Rationality makes the assumption that all the factors that can have an effect on the outcome are being monitored and accounted for. Intuition makes the assumption that one or more factors have been overlooked.
Interesting he would call Thomas Aquinas and all others who believe in God irrational.
Wow, I can't believe Pinker would say this stuff. I'm not knocking intuition or rationality. The best decisions are made when both are working together.
Hilarious, he says he is rational, and gives examples of how he is irrational... and says humans are rational, gives examples how most people are irrational.
Dream world again
A rationale In this imagination is he looks like “Kato” Kalinin O. J. rm mate and speaks like Charles Baldwin is my methodology😂
Wow! I first come across this guy about an hour ago,it was an interview with Jeffrey mishlove,way back when pinker had flowing young brown curly hair,so anyway I punched in Steven pinker,and it brought me here,my 2nd video I've seen on Steven pinker,30-40 years later I don't know but wow I've just gone through some sort of time warp! Is that rational or is this irrational fuck knows! Aha! Interesting guy tho!
@ 18:20 Its a waste of humanity to keep woman unschooled and in the kitchen. These professors do not understand that it as been a lack of resources, and men can't have babies. So the resources go to the men to get the career then get the money-- I really don't have to have a debate what has been known for eons. Men are the law of the family, women are the love-- men create law and ethics, and women propagate them. Man are not less rational. It is political correctness is that is not rational.
Well said. You’re exactly right. My thinking when it comes to people as smart as pinker does he know this or just playing it safe?
Was voting for Biden the rational decision or the correct decision, or could it have been both the irrational and the incorrect decision?
Both
Dumbest decision ever a country made
Pinker prefers a world of rational people. Not the world of people as they are.
I've just started to listen to this oddly presented man in a Hogwarts set. In the first sentence he confuses "rational" I.e in accordance with reason or logic with "rationale" i.e. set of reasons or logical basis for a course of action. As this man is paid a huge amount of money to think logically I must assume he knows this definition is bs. My logical conclusion is that he has contempt both for us and for logic.
yeah super rational campaign of CLINTON. Lol
I'm supposed to view Steven Pinker as rational? He endorsed Biden!
As opposed to those who endorsed Trump...
@@cluckycluck3053 thanks for letting me know you approve of Biden's policies and direction for this country.
@@lydiamalone1859 It might be rational to vote for Biden even if you don`t like him, if your assesment is that Trump is even worse. Just as it might be rational to chose to go to a restaurant you don't particulary like if the alternatives are worse.
@@cluckycluck3053 why would someone think that more liberty and prosperity is worse unless they were in irrational idiot who is afraid of adulting? Did they not do any homework on Joe's 47 year political career?
@@lydiamalone1859There are reasons be concerned about income and inequality, unregulated capitalism and climate change. The left address these issues, unlike the right. Take into account that Trump was constantly lying, had litle appreciations of the instititutions and rules and was an ineffective leader, and it can make sence to vote for his opponent.
The different parties have different visions and priorities, but that doesn't necessarily make it irrational to support one or the other sides.
Yeah, there’s no way women are more emotional and less rational than men.
No chance.
Sarc
Hope he comes back as a woman in his next life. He might change his mind about "gut instinct".
This is wishy washy nobody and i mean nobody at the fast pace of the world overthinks on every possibility then makes a rational decision
Not always, certainly. But at least some of us are known to do it.
This rationality debate is interrupted by adverts trying to sell a money-making scheme for, I assume Muslims. Not very rational CZcams algorithms.
I wonder why Pinker is all over several podcasts on CZcams seems to be getting mainstream popularity, am tired of seing his funny hair do. Thanks CZcams algorithms' for rubbing it in my face. Lol
because he has a new book out, genius.
@@derosa1989 I wouldn't know i never knew him, it's also a bit of algorithms' I stand firm in that it's obvious in any major media platform.
He's trapped in his own rationality
Pinker is one of the worst of the public intellectuals
Steven's optimism bugs the shit out of me. He presents data mostly in a positive light...which is fine, but he fails to mention how much more we could achieve or progress without the nefarious actors or greed or piece of shit humans out there - which leads me to believe he isn't in touch with real pain, heartache, or the malevolence of the world.
Or that he has the wisdom to see that an approach that tries to force the "pieces of shit" of the world to be better can badly go awry.
I'm just not interested in Pinker anymore.
Spoken like a candidate member of the Unherd.
Seems quite irrational to seek out a video of someone that you aren't interested in and comment to let people know that you aren't interested in them, that's a lot of effort to engage with something that you aren't interested in.
I'm not interested in ice skating, but I don't find ice skating videos to comment about how uninterested I am in ice skating, I just find something interesting to watch instead. That would be the rational thing to do.
Your comment has no value unless you explain why.
He's pushing relativistic materialism. Jordan Peterson is much better. WWI and WWII were not accidents but flowed from this enlightenment brand of "rationalism". Mindless matter in meaningless motion is not a good ground for valuing human thought as GK Chesterton taught us.
Agreed, Jordan Peterson is more rational, and can explain it so much better
Ugh…I couldn’t listen till the end. I really dislike Pinker.
@@aaronclarke7732 who cares?
Your comment has no value unless you explain why.
@@jefflerner7526 I don’t need to give explanations to anyone, especially people I don’t know. Take it, or leave it.
The irrational right-wing bias of the interviewer again on prominent display. Employ someone better. Let this troll go back under his bridge.
Only the irrational, and usually deeply-disturbed vote for Left Wing parties. What rational individual wants more poverty, more homelessness, more crime, more division, more Authoritarian control, enormous inflation, toxic, anti-humanism and identity politics?
The interviewer is dead wrong about job interviews. I'm an organisational psychologist, and there is a ton of evidence against this. Good lord, how ignorant he is.
The impulse to enshrine rationality as the core of humanity is ugly and, frankly, dumb to me.