The Great Debate: ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE (OFFICIAL) - (Part 2/2)
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 05. 2024
- Celebrate five years of Wonder with the Origins Project at our Great Debate: Transcending Our Origins: Violence, Humanity, and the Future.
The evening was moderated by Lawrence Krauss.
Our full 5 year retrospective introductory video here - • The Origins Project: 5...
The first panel, The Origins of Violence, features Steven Pinker, Richard Wrangham, Erica Chenoweth, Adrian Raine, John Mueller and Sarah Mathew discussing the development of violence from the brain to world war, followed by a Q&A.
Part 01 - • The Great Debate: ORIG...
Part 02 - • The Great Debate: ORIG...
The second panel, the Origins of the Future: From Medicine and Synthetic Biology to Machine Intelligence, featuresRichard Dawkins, Craig Venter, Kim Stanley Robinson, Esther Dyson, Eric Horvitz, George Poste and Randolph Nesse discussing the origins of the future, followed by Q&A.
Part 01 - • The Great Debate: ORIG...
Part 02 - • The Great Debate: ORIG...
Get the most recent updates from the Origins Project by following us on Facebook /ASUOriginsProject and Twitter @asuORIGINS. Contact origins.project@asu.edu with questions.
Video by Black Chalk Productions.
I am so glad that this criminologist guy got a lot of applause after mentioning the parenting. I believe it's the single most important thing in debating about violence
That and race realism think you fool
I completely agree with you. It's ming boggling that literally NOTHING is learnt about parenting in schools and that is by far the most important thing to at least have a rough concept / idea about it and it's consequences.
kosztaz87 schools have not been able to teach the 3 rs how then parenting..? first teach and change the schools from the ground up ,then have parenting class about human interacting and empathy,as well as respecting others and responceabilitys.
Brilliant debate.
Thanks for sharing.
Thank you for posting.
I'd love to attend one of these in the future.
What a treat! Thank you to ASU and the organizers.
Great videos. Wish it was in one but very thought-provoking nonetheless. Much respect to all the panels and Lawrence krauss for making this possible. Go science!
Any chance the second round of q&a on this Origins of Violence lecture was videorecorded and could be posted?
I wonder why scarcity as a major cause of violence had been completely ignored by this panel. Natural resources or the lack of it has been the primary driver for violence in almost all species.
Getting to a post scarcity era would definitely reduce most of the violent behavior.
+Shashank Gogoi You saved me the time of watching this. Thank you. I searched a debate with Steven Pinker on precisely this issue and came across this. Considering the fact that none of these people are aware of the strongest compelling evidence against genes determining people's behavior, it makes this pointless to watch.
S. F.
Agreed.
The two people I'd really like to go head to head on this issue are Steven Pinker and Dr. Gabor Mate.
S. F.
That is an absolutely EXCELLENT point of conversation and investigation. Somehow, I am simply not convinced of this panel bearing much insight however. Perhaps I can find her arguments even better stated on an individual video of hers.
I hate that it's so difficult to find relevant debates by people at the forefront of these sorts of arguments. I am wondering based on her conclusions if she may have any aversion or further arguments for a society structured based on a Natural Law / Resource Based Economy. I wonder if her research accounts for societal limitations and otherwise influential root societal factors on this front.
If you are familiar with what I am talking about here, perhaps you may even have some insight XD
Yes, Resource Based Economy is a dreamy future but I am all for it. However, in order for it to happen, would require the people working towards it, to be able to fund it THEMSELVES.
I find the approach of Elon Musk and Manoj Bhargava as something TVP can learn from. Both these American billionaires have made their fortunes with a single product. This led to growth of more products and ideas. There are many similar stories out there that have sprung up from our monetary world.
The reason I find these two individuals as someone we must learn from is because they had an idea and worked with commercial models to fund their sustainable technologies. We all know the monetary system is doomed but for now we have to beat it by working with it.
Therefore, I feel, TVP can only be successful, in a global scale, if the TVP folks can fund themselves with products/technologies they can manufacture and sell. Only a viable commercial model will convince Govts. to step aside and make way for a Type-1 civilization.
Educating the masses is all well and good but the success of TVP will lie in it's ability to fund itself.
Shashank Gogoi
I agree (mostly). As a matter of fact, I have made extensive comments and sent letters along exactly the same lines as you just made, noting Elon Musk as well. The reason I say mostly is, TVP or an RBE based model is not a product (and I wouldn't simply label it "a dreamy future" =P). My point was always that the conversation just needs to be taken on a greater scale and basically, if it were to reach the likes of Elon Musk and furthermore public intellectuals/scientific figures, it might start catching the media's attention because suddenly it's something which can capture people's interest. The point furthermore would be for the first city to be funded somehow, whether it's a bunch of billionaires and/or a largely government funded project, the idea being that this first city would be kind of like a huge University and all jobs there would be for the purpose, through every field/industry, of further researching ideas and creating video games and movies that show the possibilities.
This is somewhat realistic and an actual possibility. It's not as unprecedented and it could in fact happen if it's generally something the people want. Not enough people know about it so as it stands, spreading the awareness is the best thing to do; imo it's just not being done strategically enough. Somehow, I don't feel like Elon Musk would object to this idea and I doubt either Peter Joseph or Jacque Fresco ever tried approaching him with these ideas and seeing if he might have a way of contributing.
I find myself questioning the causal link between cigarette smoking and violence in the offspring. I suspect that the link may have more to do with socio-economic conditions of the home in which the mother smokes than the smoking itself.
"You stimulated a lot"
.. and the man just keeps smiling wide.... sooo funnnnnaaaaayyyyy!!! xD
I love the debate. I'm interested that my mom smoked, drank, didn't pay much attention to nutrition and I grew up in a crime filled neighborhood and I by my mental ethics alone am not a violent criminal
These debates remind me why I don't watch television.
Television is awesome!
No is not
Well it can be... If you use it as a monitor
I think I see what you mean. These debates, to me at least, are infinitely more fascinating than the most popular TV shows.
thanks for that
Parenting courses are already offered (compulsory) to high school students in countries like Sweden.
16:00 or so, very interesting information.
He said have a good intermission. Is there no Part 3?
Around 22:50 on the question of whether one could do pre-emptive policiing : "people with smaller amygdalia are 4 times more likely to commit violent murder".
People always get hung up on the "X times more likely" figures. But without the control likelyhood value, and the percentage of all crimes that are committed by smaller amygdaliae people, it's meaningless. If a random member of the population has a 1% chance of committing a crime, then 4x more likely means that the smaller amygdalia person has a 4% chance of committing a crime. Put another way, that means that 96% of people with smaller amygdaliae will not commit violent crimes, whereas 99% of people with normal amygdaliae won't.
Also, if people with smaller amygdaliae are only 3% of the population, then the vast majority of crimes are committed by normal people anyway, so this would have virtually no effect on crime.
Any discussion about whether a "4x more likely" probability is reason enough to take action should do well to reason on numbers intelligently instead of bandying these unanalyzed stats around.
Interesting.
With regards to the amygdala, and the frontal and temporal lobes, male circumcision has been shown to cause changes to those areas. Might it be possible that that particular ritual has, over the ages, created a number of sociopaths, and hence an enhanced level of violence?
Not all sociopaths are murderous; it's just that if they have something to gain by murder, and think they can get away with it, then empathy doesn't come into play. It's just the ones who think they can get away with it that you really need to keep an eye on, and perhaps lock up.
Keep in mind that locking people up, however right in however many instances, is institutionalized violence. From your saying that sociopathic people (wrong-sized amygdalae and missing foreskins) should perhaps be pre-emptively locked up, I detect in your own pronouncements perhaps a sociopathic disposition to violent measures. How about perhaps we lock _you_ up?
14:56
This part was fascinating, the gentleman suggested that "We accept a murderous form of transportation, but don't accept murderous governments and their militaries" and proposed this as a strange ethical situation. The audience(including myself) reeled back at the callous ignorance of intentions.
The shocked audience, just as I did, must have thought something like:
"Is this guy actually suggesting that the intentions between automobile accidents and war are the same?"
Well, yes and no. People envision the following to trigger this emotional response: First they envision a perfectly blameless automobile accident scenario, and dismiss this as the best of intentions, with tragic outcomes. Then they imagine an evil, warmongering country brutally and intentionally killing innocents. But both of these views are naive. Reality is never this simplistic, and there's plenty of negligence when it comes to automobile accidents, and there are also ethical decisions made in war. The point of war is not to pointlessly slaughter as many people as possible, that would be more along the lines of the behavior of a terrorist organization.
What was the man's name that was talking about brain scans? I found him particularly interesting.
I believe that's Adrian Raine
Debieran traducir al español¡¡¡¡¡
21:41
12:05
50% mortality from intertribal warfare, and no one thought that should be debated! Very disappointing conference.
" ..look at my son,
he's the only one in step"
..true or false?
.
well,
.you would have had to be there at the beginning,
..and at the end....🤯
The greatest effects of parenting seem to be becuase of abuse or neglect,
.🤜🤛👉👍
..enough fun ...
1:52 ish, what does the audience dude call out?
I am also curious
krauss is so funny XD
show him to anyone who believes in the scientist-sterotype.
Were mothers randomized into smoking and not smoking in the study that found that it causes criminal behaviour in the offspring? If they weren't I am surprised that this, result, clearly due to a myriad of confounders, was brought up in such a learned environment.
with all my respect, video games don't make people violent
I'm still watching Game of Thrones. :P
+hawk0485 My favorite scene was when a king was asked, "he only watched. Should we execute him as well?" The King replied, "make sure to kill him last, so he can "just watch" all his friends die.
Why wait til high school for “parenting class”?...jettison the idea boys don’t play with dolls...let them play with them from a young age...and value girls for their seemingly more inherent desire and natural tendency to play with dolls...give young boys *and* girls the feeling/experience that caring for children is valuable...
ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE.... FREEWAY TRAFFIC!
I wonder if Erica included Crimean independence as an example of a non-violent campaign... and the US sponsored coup in Ukraine as violent??
I crave fish after watching this video. Yeah I mean FISHY FISH ;)
Plz clarify
The violent video games and movies are there not to make the people violent, but to make them get used to guns and war. Resource Based Economy for a better future!
Parenting skills, yes, an absolute necessity so far largely neglected by educators.
Unfortunately it doesn't include psychological violence !
Adrian is mixing up correlation and causation. -.-
"To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting"- Sun Tzu~ Violence may becoming more rare in the form of actual violence as a tactic of war but war itself will always persist so long as nationalism and tribalism requires the subjugation of one's enemy. Economic and political jingoism is highly complicated especially when there are drastically different cultures and value systems vying for regional and potentially global dominance. I am skeptical that traditional war is less likely and believe that world war becomes more likely as Europe consolidates and Russia and China reemerge as world powers. That doesn't even take into account the rise of militant Islam who's leaders follow Sun Tzu's tactics and teachings almost to the letter. We as Americans and Europeans persist in the western philosophy of cooperation, globalism and capitulation which historically has always backfired "Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories"-Sun Tzu
Paul Smith Yes. Rules for logic and strategies for reason were established by a Greek over 5 centuries later but you would admit that philosophy isn't confined or even best practiced by the modern state of Greece no? It doesn't really matter where something was discovered especially if said philosophy is 2500 years old. What matters most is who is best applying the strategy today.
I think the questions were better than the debate
Gee, artificially forcing different ethno-linguistic groups to live in proximity sounds like a bad idea.
There are no soldiers or cops on this panel. I would love to see any one of these guys trying to tie up a violent burglar with logic, or hunt down a rogue infantryman who went too far with a prisoner and then disappeared into the trees, and then force him into submission with one of their clever arguments. If the reality of managing violence doesn't matter, why should talking about it matter at all? It doesn't.
that's like a mechanic telling an automotive engineer "a lot of good that calculus will do you when you're trying change a throwout bearing."
These are two different levels of concern, and both are needed.
btw *sam harris's podcast interview with Jocko* is really fascinating if you want to get into the nitty gritty like that.
Holy shit, this comment doesn't even deserve a reply. What a fkn moron
Policing Wars: I heard this from a movie tow men talking to each other, in the movie they have been exposed for running clandestine, black ops ops situations; "no one wants conflict anymore (armed conflict), so what are guys like us gonna do now....?"
This applies to semi military groups that go to other countries to give "security services" there for corporations, like the ones hired by Halliburton. With exposure the issue arises that if they are not directly from a government, who can or does rain those people in if they [as normally happens] go too far at times??
But really, "what are guys like that gonna do"? Especially if you consider the many thousands who become SPECIALISED soldiers at an early age, they consider it a disgrace to become security guards at MacDonal's... how can you be in charge of millions of dollars of equipment and command hundreds of men, and then come and become a factory worker... suicide anyone??
This is why that guy in Apocalypse Now WANTED to go back and demanded to be given a DANGEROUS mission; he was going nuts just sitting around in that hotel room.
Steven Pinker is the GOAT
....sigh.........🤔👁️👁️
..ecologist ......
Very superficial debate.... I expected something more deep...
It is incredible that someone like the guy with the long hair is a scientist at Harvard. His example why consuming violence does not result in violent behavior is laughable.
+uncomonsense where is your study of your implied claim that consuming violent entertainment causes real life violence, doctor??
Are you serious? Read Christopher Ferguson's research. He has a 2015 paper that does a longitudinal analysis of violence in media and violence in real life, and where media violence has increased, real life violence has decreased. The previous studies from the 80's seem to have found an artefact.
He also looked at video games which have took media violence to massive levels, and violent crime has decreased in a linear relationship with that -- although he contests the likelihood of a cathartic effect.
The origins of media violence is Bobo the Doll and Bandura's experiments, and since then these lab experiments are very open to scrutiny. Social learning theory modernly considers media and real life learning to be separated.
There is an argument that media gets blamed for gun crime in the US, when guns should be what are blamed. As stated, contemporary social learning theory (which is criminology theory too) would consider the gun and watching others use guns in real life, to be worlds more influential in creating gun crime use.
Yeah America has a gun culture, but I take the view that a guns design purpose is an offensive weapon, and as such, will gravitate towards being used criminally.
Switzerland also has very high suicide rates, which is another issue with the gun. But yes, they achieve quite low homicides considering the amount of gun ownership.
The homicides they do have, often do involve guns.
It's an offensive weapon. It projects hot metal at high speeds to cause severe to fatal physical damage. It won't prevent a crime per say as allow you to murder a person when you perceive them as committing one. Not only are US homicides the highest in the developed world, but your defensive gun use laws are likely masking how high the gun use is. There are grey areas in the law where people can legally get away with killing people -- and we can use likes of Zimmerman killing Martin as a case.
Of course guns are not the only thing that causes crime. America celebrates guns in a way that probably exacerbates their use. Guns kills people, that is their design function, they don't have an alternative use.
Humans are prone to error, guns rarely fail, they do what you intended them to do. We can't stop people from making errors, or having bad intentions as you would suggest, but we can keep them from dangerous equipment. After all, why would you ever need guns fit for a war situation in a civilian environment? You can buy hollow-point ammo in America, which is illegal even on a battlefield.
Substantial differences between US and Switzerland to say the least. And if Switzerland did have irresponsible gun use and high crime, they would probably ban guns. As most developed countries already have.
Of course it has a gun culture. They celebrate guns, and see it as part of their heritage, citing the 2nd amendment.
Responsible citizens do not need battlefield weaponry.
It's arguable irresponsible to even own a guns without a justified cause. The paranoid delusion that you are frequently at risk of being murdered, makes allowing these people to own a gun irresponsible. It increases the likelihood of misuse, and this idea that it is an effective defence tool, is false.\
And yes, it drives up the price of black market guns; as access to them is harder. Also, higher penalties for carrying a gun, and zero tolerance of use would deter crime.
This notion that a 'criminal' will still commit a crime without a crime tool is ridiculous. If there was a tool for breaking into cars, then of course the widespread availability of the tool is increasing the crime rate. And the response that some people might use it to innocently get back into their own car after accidentally locking themselves out is just mindless. It's for breaking into a car, of course you cannot allow it to be legally obtained. A gun is for killing people, of course you cannot allow it to be legally obtained.
You seem to be indoctrinated by gun culture ideals. In psychology, we would bring up the fundamental attribution error to address this cognitive bias that 'other people' misuse guns. No, the gun doesn't really have 'good' use, it's a fairly sadistic and unforgiving weapon.
SO GRINGOLAND HAS ADOPTED THE CHINESE AS PART OF THEIR GROUP? WHAT A CROCK
The unsightly ship surgically rock because company curiously muddle until a tremendous hot. thundering, elated maraca
Video games / horrors movies bad 🙄 ...
Is that a dude that sounds like a girl? Or a girl that looks like a dude?
It's a woman.
it appears that you are not a smart person
She makes me think of Mark Cuban for some reason.
Great advice for situations like this:
media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/94/f7/93/94f793e5d8fa71d59ab598211753a62b.jpg
These days Christian schools and churches do teach quite a bit parenting skills.
Yawn, nothing new here...
anyone who brings a child into thsi world is a sadist.