This is first Rubin Report I've viewed, so I don't know what they are generally like, but these are the sort of discussions we should have. An intelligent interviewer (a libertarian), and an intelligence interviewee (a liberal) showing mutual respect and understanding. Everyone gains, interviewer, interviewee, and, most importantly, the viewers. What more can you hope for.
Steven Pinker is an absolutely amazing man, I like everything about him, the way he speaks, manners, politeness, the calmness of his voice it's all, in summary, making a great picture of greatly educated, reasonable, calm and pleasant gentleman that is cool to listen to, his ideas is the most progressive in the real sense of this word, he got a very broad area of knowledge and understanding of the processes in the world in different domains, that's kind of people we need to learn from.
I'm glad Dave pushed back on Dr. Pinker a bit concerning the government. A lot of times these "Futurists" have this warped idea that government will solve all our problems. But Dr. Pinker is still cool and I want to get his book! Thanks Dave!
It would be weird to agree with someone on absolutely everything they said. That's called blind worship. You sir have what's known as an open mind and that's great.
Dave, you're conversational skills have improved so much over the time since you've started this channel(you were always a good conversationalist, but you've improved). Great guest and Great Job.
the on thing im not on line with pinker is this new study about free speech because u wont find ppl saying i am against free speech. its rather they believe and value freespeech as long as for them whatever was said isnt hatespeech and that the problem today, hatespeech musst be defined by the intention of the one saying things and not how it is among alot of ppl that hatespeech is whatever hurts ur feelings
Sven N. It's akin to our politicians who "support the second ammendment " and want to ban all assault-murder-death-kill-weapons-of-mass-destruction which comprises most firearms.
This episode got me thinking how America can be on the same page as Americans. These principles and values I believe everyone can agree with. Now our media and politicians needs to follow suit.
Contrary to what they said at the beginning about "social media making you stupid", just listening to Pinker talk and explain things makes me feel like I'm getting smarter by the the minute! 🤓
As I scroll through a sea of vids about the YTHQ shooting, I see Pinker and Rubin reassuring me that there's hope for humanity. Click. Like. Watch. In that order.
In one breath he speaks about our short sightedness about history, and in the next breath he speaks about how democracy and representative government is the only viable mechanism for fighting oppressive government.
Yet another Rubin Report interview with somebody discussing their book where Dave shows no indication of having ever opened it. He can't ask specific questions about the book because he hasn't read the book so every question ends up being some variation of "Aren't SJWs horrible?"
Is anyone else thinking he's kind of a calm Jordan Peterson? - Watching Pinker talk, there's almost a total dispassion to his demeanor. Not by any means a bad thing, just an observation. But it is a stark contrast to JBP.
What worries me, is even though he is right that the extreme Left and extreme Right are not the majority. It doesn't take a majority to radically change a Country for the worse. If you look at history, it was almost always a very loud and active minority that brought about the Nazi's and the Communists. What really has me worried being a Canadian, is this extreme Leftism is coming from PHd students, and our higher, and now in some Provinces, our lower education system. This is the troubling fact. Who is going to be working and giving advice to our Government in the future? Who is going to be hired as the next generation of teachers? Who are going to be the next appointees to our court system. The current government is a disaster, already trying to change the court system due to a Farmer who shot a Native young man. And the farmer was found innocent. They of course, instead of going by facts, jumped right to the racism card, and politically interfered with the courts by making statements, basically calling this ruling "Racist", not exactly in those words, but definitely implied. And are now trying to pass a bill to make sure that in any case of a native individual being tried. The jury will basically have to have other natives in it. They of course missed the facts that tons of natives were interviewed, and could not be unbiased. That's just one small case of these extreme Leftists, governing by feelings, instead of facts. Same with the new Gun Laws they are proposing. Because of shootings that happened in another flipping country! They were even busted by the CBC, fudging the facts on gun crimes rising. And that coming from the CBC, is pretty inditing. I have voted Liberal when I was younger, never again.
Fantastic conversation. I appreciate how Steven Pinker thinks things through issue by issue rather than settling for the intellectual shortcuts afforded by blind partisanry.
Thank you, Dave, for leading the professor right down the merry path to explaining the horrors of government gone awry in Venezuela or under fascists or communists last century directly after having him say how silly it is to imagine that citizens of a country would need guns to bring down an authoritarian government. I wonder if he will catch the gaping hole in his logic! Proud of Dave for knowing exactly how to expose this without calling him out! The time frame for this is 14:25 to 17:43.
Steven Pinker would have you believe that radical Leftism on college campuses is "probably overblown" while laws regarding compelled speech are being passed in his home country of Canada. I don't know how severe things have to get before people like Pinker start taking the threat seriously.
He loves to throw "progressivism bla bla" talk into everything. Probably in denial about his cult having taken over the entire West and being the new fascism. Nazis probably denied too.
That sounds like absolute thinking.The world rarely works that way. The views seem compatible to me. It is perfectly well possible, and seems legit, that only a small portion of the campus left, wants to shut down opposing view... same as on the right. Indeed that their numbers are going down. And yet that at the same time, that group is getting more and more extreme in their views, and have crossed the line to actually being violent thugs. Indeed it would make sense that this very behavior would convince most moderates to abandon such views. Thus, the percentage would shrink, but the severity and impact would increase.
Your really not thinking. See the comment above me. That is reasoning. I'm as anti stupidity as anyone, but I won't join the stupid anti-stupidity cult, when the data shows the opposite.
I felt a bit embarrassed for Mr. Pinker when he expressed that his understanding of the Second Amendment to be that it allows people to be judge and jury and even worse when he said that we can vote out a tyrannical government. I don’t claim to be a sage, but I have lived in the developing world for almost two decades and uniformly, the populace is disarmed and can only own shotguns or a single-shot rifle. The governments and criminals are fully armed and often take advantage of the people. To protect from criminals, where finances allow, the homes are surrounded by walls and all homes have bars on the windows. The people are very much at the mercy of criminals, gangs and bandits. Our FFs specifically created the Second Amendment, building on English common law with a robust debate and discussion on the importance of an armed citizenry. I’m sure Mr. Pinker has much to contribute to society but in my opinion, due to his lack of knowledge of the Second Amendment and most likely no experience living in the “disarmed” developing world, he cannot be taken seriously on this issue. Cheers
His comment about "Liberals not being willing to figure out which programs work and don't" reminded me of Thomas Sowell's story about going to work at the Labor Department as a Socialist and leaving as a Conservative when he realized that no one cared about measuring the effect of the programs they were running. Unfortunately, things haven't gotten better more than half a century later.
Pinker is a big supporter of Thomas Sowell, and yet clearly has not read his work on gun control and other areas that he's speaking about here. He should do that.
At the 6:15 mark, Pinker shows his ignorance on fighting back against the government with guns. He's under the mistaken notion that government is always benign and will never change. History should've taught Pinker that no, Governments change. You can be in a Democracy and it can fall to tyranny very quick. A recent example is Venezuela. Venezuela voted in a Socialist Chavez and he started to exert control over the economy. His predecessor Maduro then got private firearms confiscated in 2012. Now, in Venzuela there are food riots in the streets and disarmed public is having to fight against their own police and military. ALL of this was voted into place in a Democracy, this tyranny. Please for the love of GOD Rubin, when someone brings up anti-gun stance and how we are a Democracy and we don't fight against the police, remind him that plenty of Democracies fall. The US is not some special snowflake, ALL nations fall eventually ALL. Having an armed populace is one guard against tyranny, take away the guns and tyranny follows. Look at the insanity going on in the UK right now turning into an Orwellian surveillance and think/say only what the state allows State, its turning into a nation very close to going into tyranny and the Brits have been disarmed.
Guns don't prevent tyranny. Unless you can think of an actual real-life example where it has, and not some hypothetical bullshit. Give me an example of where gun owners actually fought off military strength and prevented tyranny. I mean fighting in the street. No hypotheticals.
Let's look at the Revolutionary War. The British would have crushed the rebels if they had not managed to organize themselves into a proper army, with military discipline, cannons, tactics, strategy, logistics and chains of command. George Washington had experience fighting FOR the British in the French and Indian War. Even then the British still would have won if France had not intervened with weapons, food, cash and critically, naval forces. In fact, the American leaders knew they could not beat Britain alone and only decided to revolt on the assumption of French military intervention. Yes, the Minutemen and the hit-and-run tactics of various small units did play an important part in the war effort, but nowhere near a decisive one. Regular armies did. The farmers who owned muskets did not have cannon foundries in their backyards and didn't know anything about how to fight in units larger than guerilla bands.
When people voted for Chavez nobody knew he was going to become a Fidel Castro disciple but you could tell that if someone planned a military coup his government was not going to be a democracy
I admire his adhesion to the altruistic nature of humanity despite centuries of contrary evidence. Faith, even for an agnostic, seems to be an essential component of living a hopeful life.
Dave, as a longtime listener and fan for the past two years, I fear that your recent interviews are revealing a change in your rhetoric and mind. I’m sensing that your position as a libertarian is becoming paramount above all. I don’t understand how you can identify as a classical liberal and then give Pinker a hard time when he suggests how some government programs work and make life better. When Pinker was discussing how the EPA has been successful, the way you reacted made it seem like you don’t care or that it’s an inconvenient truth that you don’t like. Don’t lose having an open mind and be careful about your own bias creeping in.
the best thing about pinker's appearances online? that his talking points criticizing the authoritarian Left (the excesses of political correctness, online social justice, MeToo illiberalism etc) align so well with right-wing views that the most salient user-commentary comes from the right, and they are INFURIATED with his progressive views on religion and guns, as well as his statistics-driven approach to islamic terrorism also many of them don't like that he's jewish so you get lots of yahoos saying that he's an idiot, hypocrite, or wuss its hilarious keep it up, folks
I liked the first 2/3 of this. His big picture stuff is good. When you get down to specifics, his left-leanings come out (guns, etc.) but one could hardly expect less coming from a long time Harvard tenant. I was kind of surprised on the gun exchange that he didn't have a better grasp of the "science" behind why more guns does not equate to more violence (quite the opposite even in places like Switzerland and Finland as well as the US). But even the smartest among us have our weaknesses. Sam Harris can't seem to let the religion thing go either to the point of being childish about it sometimes. Good interview overall!
I like this format. Great discussions. Also, I have a suggestion: It would be nice if you could get William Lane Craig on or something. Maybe Alvin Plantinga. Some intelligent christian apologist, at least. Thank you very much.
I think there are a ton of perspectives that you could easily weigh 2 options on, for instance the gun control debate. Group A, wants guns with very limited controls. Group B, wants guns to go away because they see constant gun violence in the news and they perceive them as a threat. However no one really explores group C, maintaining constant gun safety and proper firearm storage. A majority of criminals do not obtain their weapon legally, they are usually stolen. Some elderly guy throws his pistol wrapped in a rag up in the closet and forgets he even has it. Someone breaks in stealing it and sells it on the street. Before you know it, that firearm has been involved in other crimes. If you secure your firearms correctly with a floor mounted safe then no one can run in and take off with a firearm. I think there are many instances where option C, could in fact be the best option.
He had me until the gun stuff. He's speaking from a very privileged position of living in a "currently" peaceful country and system of government. He's looking at it from a "right now" screenshot of our situation and ignoring the long term preventative factor. He then immediately follows up with mentioning tyrannical western governments. So he conflicts with his own points within a span of a minute.
Simon Paul I know saying we need gun control is incredibly vague? What's the purpose of it and what will it accomplish? I know guns are quicker with bullets to kill, but you can say the same thing with a knife stabbing.
That is because conservatives like yourself are known to be more fearful people. Larger amygdalas where fear reigns. I am a liberal, I own no guns, and I do not walk around in terror that our government is going to behave like some Gestapo. Fear drives people to conservative solutions, but not all of us are so frightened of the dark, or the unknown, or the immigrant, or life without God and eternity.
ubuu7 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 I'm not a conservative, I don't believe in God (I'm an anthiest) and I'm not afraid of the dark as I have faced death at an early age. And I'm most definitely not afraid of immigrants as my 2 sisters are adobted from Russia. But they came here legally obviously. Your assumptions are quite revealing of your incapacity to have a thoughtful discussion. So not gonna bother wasting my time with you.
ubuu7 you know if you spent more time actually thinking instead of trying to label people with some BS identity you might actually have something worth saying. And how is Rubin aligned with the right? Because he believes in individual freedom? Does the left not believe in individual freedom or something? 🙄
More talk I see. "These philosophers could not influence their own neighborhood. But this one man Jesus filled the world with men that loved righteousness and no longer feared death.” [Athanasius]
The EPA is a disaster. My libertarian leanings would put me in the camp of trashing the whole thing, BUT you could fix the worst of the EPA by simply divorcing the people writing the regulations from the people who enforce the regulations.
Owning a gun DOESN'T make you want to become Judge Dred.... wanting the best tool to protect yourself (in many situations not all) doesn't change someones mind to all the sudden become a vigilante.
The argument that an armed citizenry is useless against the military is true, but it’s also not the point. The military & police back off when there is an armed resistance. The soldiers & police think twice. Without the armed resistance the police would just do whatever they want without resistance. Want a modern example? The Bundy standoff. Whether you agree or disagree with what occurred (chances are most have been misinformed by the media) the armed resistance worked & the government changed its position & courts ruled in their favor.
fluff muff what about when the US invaded Afghanistan and the taliban still controls 70 percent of the country. I don’t think the military can defeat an armed populace
fluff muff I think the Bundy standoff is even more relevant when compared to Vietnam and Afghanistan. We were willing to bomb infrastructure and suffer collateral deaths when fighting in these two countries, and If it ever came to the point where there were armed standoffs or conflicts between the gov't and citizens in several places across the country, things would spiral out of control in a heartbeat if the same tactics that were used overseas were used here. The greater US population would very quickly turn and rise up against the government.
The Internet Police I’ll go a step further, I think the US military would turn against the government if the government gave the order to attack citizens. This is my fear of autonomous robotic warfare & drones. The elimination of the conscience of the soldier.
The last part transcribed for anybody who wants to be able to repeat it as eloquently as Pinker does "Here's some hardening facts; the Flynn effect that IQ scores have been rising by 3 points per decade for almost a century... Certainly the fact that extreme poverty has been plummeting I think is one of the greatest things that's ever happened, literally a 75% reduction in 30 years in global rate of extreme poverty. The rise of literacy: 90% of the worlds population under the age of 25 can now read and write. There's almost perfect parody now between girls and boys which is encouraging. Infectious diseases are in decline; malaria, tuberculosis, diarrhoea, we've vanquished small pox and sent it off into history, it's no longer a disease. We may do the same thing with polio.With guinea worm there's terrific progress being made. Values of toleration and what I think we would all agree are progressive values such as toleration of homosexuality, women's equality, the right to get a divorce, political participation, have believe it or not all been in gradual increase in every part of the world. Even in the most politically backward parts of the world, namely the Middle East and North Africa, there has been an increase especially when you compare generations. So the younger generations are much more open and sympathetic to liberal values than the older generation."
My disagreement with Pinker on guns is about 5-10% off his grade (guns have stopped mass shooters in the past, and a well-armed populace is a deterrent against tyranny when Democracy dies by vote), but I love his kind, measured tone, and his perspective on everything else; he's not a race-baiting resentment-monger or a Starbucks-swilling anti-Capitalist, rather a true Progressive who wants to discuss solutions rather than smugly argue. He gets a 90% in my book! A liberal I'd happily share a beer and discuss abortion with.
I like listening to Pinker. I do find it fascinating that the more intelligent our species becomes, the less we know. Enlightenment, humanism, umm. Does Mr Pinker applaud the fact that morality, well-being and culture, in the west, has emerged in tandem with Christianity? Just as we inherit our looks etc, perhaps we inherit our morals and culture. The very fabric of the Word (large W) appears to be knitted into our DNA.
I have this wet dream where there is a televised event at a round table that seats Steven Pinker, Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, the reanimated corpse of Christopher Hitchens, and any other open minded and intellectually honest titans of logic.
I really enjoy Pinker’s fact-based, well-reasoned approach to some of the positive outgrowths of the Enlightenment (or, more accurately, ideas that came of age at a similar time to the Enlightenment). However, he truly glosses over much of the harm the Enlightenment has done to ethics, philosophy, and moral intelligibility. Also, it gets really trite and a little boring when he treads into the old, familiar safe space of garden-variety academic liberalism. I almost always enjoy Dave Rubin’s civil and fair interviews, though.
3:02 there are different classes of people who deny that we've made progress. Pinker asserts that we've made progress as if it were a fact. Sure, we've progressed in a lot of unimportant ways (e.g. less sexism, less racism, less murder, less war), but we've regressed in several horrible ways (e.g. increasing suicides, increasing depression, anxiety, ADHD, insomnia, stress).
Well I am dead because I wanted to be enlightened and not be "Judge, Jury, and Executioner" against my attacker.... If only everyone were as enlightened as me, maybe we could live in a fantasy land where guns aren't useful as a self defense tool.
Aron Linde The way the world is changing is a good reminder that we have been fortunate to have lived through a relatively long period of peace and stability, and that, to your point, it never lasts. We ignore that reality to our peril.
Pinker's view on climate change is a great example of he knows better and has passed judgement even though on many fronts what needs to be done is wide open for debate. If he would study history he would see a strong correlation between humanities well being and warmer temperatures and the magnificent greening of the earth due in part to increased plant food in the atmosphere CO2. Where I live every degree warmer makes my life easier. CO2 GOOD
Yeah, he is right on the money on a lot of things with a great grasp of the evidence. But on others, it's obvious he hasn't looked at the evidence and is just speaking an opinion, or he is purposely ignoring the facts. I like him overall though. I bet it's a tough position for him to be in, trying to ride the fence and cater to both sides.
Equality for women, rights for gays, decrease in poverty, free speech, democracy all cannot coexist with Islam. What does Pinker have to say about the future of Europe?
I wish he would look at a particular stat nationwide: How many law abiding gun owners intervened in a crime to save someone's life or thwarted a robbery or saved their own life (home invasion) over the last 5 years. Secondarily, if you go with the premise that most people are good caring people, why wouldn't a nationwide gun education and safety program prove effective in decreasing gun violence. Government mandated of course, so he could feel good about it. 🤔
I'd just like to say that when he talked about the availability heuristic, as an AP Psych student (not even in college yet) I knew what he was talking about. I feel knowledgable lmfao.
I like Pinker for the most part but the section on guns was painful to watch. He says that it's ridiculous to think about shooting back at the police, then mentions how in some countries you can be hauled away by the police for criticizing your political leaders. I hate to break it to you Pinker, but that is EXACTLY the point of the 2nd Amendment. Should such things as you mentioned happening in Venezuela or Turkey occur in the U.S., that is precisely when it is reasonable to use force against the Police. Thankfully that is not necessary at the moment, (as in Western countries in general the systems of checks and balances are operating at least reasonably well) but thinking it will definitely never be is naive.
This guy is a classic academic. Too much belief in government and basic human goodness. Very limited in his views on liberty and freedom. Please set him up with Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder, maybe even Peterson.
I pretty much agree with everything that Pinker says. Yes, our society has a lot of good stuff going for it. Yes, it's crazy to talk about shooting back at police. Government can be good or bad or ineffective, but take an even approach to assessing it, and some things only government can accomplish. Rubin can't get him to agree that government is bad, kind of funny.
Outsource Justice to a 3rd party? Maybe try calling it outsourcing safety. You don't have to fatally shoot an attacker to stop violence/ the threat of violence.
"We have this thing called democracy, when the government becomes to oppressive we speak out against it"... Uhm, why don't you tell that to the Chinese and North Koreans. If the government becomes oppressive to time for speaking against it is waaayyy past, BECAUSE the government won't care who speaks out against it. If the founding fathers of the US had his view on guns they would never have been able to administrate a war against their former state and king.
15:56 good grief...this is why people should only talk about the things they know. Yes, fool...Not only is the only way we got a Democracy is via GUNS (yes, everywhere in the world got Democracy via violently taking down a government that didnt allow it or from those that did like Canada via their British masters), it is the only way to hold onto it. Go on and try to VOTE and use your VOICE when a government takes those rights away if you cannot FORCE them to stop. And for what came after 16:50 we ARE under threat of having that right taken away NOW via ultra PC radicals trying to make offending someone a crime. Canada bringing a professors assistant up on hate crime charges for showing a VIDEO in class...Britain not allowing Conservatives into Britain because of their political views...
If you think segregation isn't a thing anymore, I invite you to look into Evergreen College, black people taking vacations away from white people, "blacks only" safe spaces, etc. It would appear that the idea of segregation is alive and well, Mr. Pinker.
On the knee-jerk reaction to say that government eliminated pollution just look at the cities, I ask "Or did they simply reduce the cities, where there are fewer people & fewer industries?" Great job government, your regulatory policies moved industrial jobs overseas and replaced the countryside with subdivisions...I mean cleaned the air.
On many statistics, Pinker always finds a way to say “let’s look at the bright side!” Today the percentage of people in poverty in the US is about half of what it was by the end of the fifties. Great! But wait - the number people in poverty has more than doubled, while the number of Americans doubled. Similar with homelessness, and much worse with untreated mental health. At the same time the institutions that deal with these issues, social workers, folks who help with food stamps and winter heating cost support, are almost gone, their offices consolidated and their budgets slashed more and more. The only thing left until the end is a bunch of bureaucrats, and even those are replaced more and more by online methods. Often not accessible, most of that is about catching 22. If you are poor and want help you better get your papers in order, in fact you need to be spanking clean. In some states you even have to pee in the cup because of “war on drugs” and “war on poverty” ideology. The main method to reduce poverty in America is by making it more and more complicated to be poor. Oh you didn’t file a tax return last year - well too bad, go to hell. Fewer and fewer of the overburdened caseworkers are friendly, this atmosphere is poisonous, with the exceptions of a few good souls who actually care. Anyone who becomes depressed or down trodden is likely to just give up. A society that gave in to the belief that poverty is just a little problem, and only somehow spoils the pretty view, is bound to give the task of solving the problem to people with insufficient understanding with low pay, or to experts who can create just the right kind of data needed to confirm the sugarcoating and whitewashing of social reality, which the politicians in charge prefer to confirm the success of their policies.
All these comments about guns protecting against tyrannical goverments: This MAY have worked 200 years ago (but probably not). Nowadays, if the police and military were to remain _entirely_ loyal to the goverment (for some reason), a few armed civillians won't be able to do jack shit. You'd have to hope for outside intervention, but if you're the US that won't happen. Basically, you're screwed.
Pinker, is very (VERY) collectivist. Economically he's a typical Keynesian, and he wants so "solve" everything inside the existing "system", which is pretty much rotten to the bone. He talks about free markets but he doesn't want it. He want's state controlled (regulated) markets, which is the main reason for corruption, in politics and business. People like him should never have power, but he's a brilliant critic.
it's nice to hear another person note that pre-summer 2016, the term alt-right had a very different meaning than it receive once it entered popular lexicon following clinton's speech reducing the term to the politics of its coiner.
I was able to listen until he said "...that's why we have this thing called democracy...". Never mind that every single "civilized" nation that has outlawed civilian use of guns has crime equal to, or higher than, the USA when those figures are proportioned for population difference. To come at it from a different angle, if personal safety/security _doesn't_ start and end with the individual, then why don't we put our faith in the government to protect us from STDs and unwanted pregnancies instead of wearing condoms and using birth control? Simply put, if the time comes where guns are needed to oppose a tyrannical government or ruling body, then it stands to reason that the time when voting by other means would affect change are long past valid consideration. One can argue that the only reason Canada was able to negotiate for _their_ independence was because England had already been beaten once and didn't wish to be again so soon.
The US has a homicide rate of 5.35 per 100 000 citizens (i.e. proportioned for populace difference), this puts the US just above Cuba. I would not call Cuba a civilized nation. Western European countries score 2 or below and most of them have heavy restrictions on civilian gun ownership. What you are saying is simply factually incorrect. As for why people don't put faith in the government in protecting them from STD's the simple answer is that most people realise that the government can't reliably protect the populace from STD's. The government is just a group of people with a governing function, they aren't omnipotent gods.
Pinker mentions "politicized denial of climate change" science and at another part of the interview talks of the importance of testing hypotheses. I'm scratching my head. Hasn't there been over 100 computer models -- constituting hypotheses -- predicting catastrophic man-made climate change? And haven't they all failed?
Pinker is not a crazy leftist so that's a great start, but I find him to be sort of an ivory tower, limousine, atheist liberal; not a danger to the country but simply disagree with his world view.
Wendovor Productions that’s because he is an actual liberal, most “liberals” are just democrats; just like most republicans call themselves conservatives but are just establishment republicans big difference in both cases in my opinion.
Quite true. His elitism even isn't as bad as most, but he does have somewhat of a blind spot. Most of all he's a moderate who can look at other views. It was worth noting that in this interview he actually places himself now as a centrist (afaik in the category of, 'that which used to be called the left')
Great interview but I believe pinker isn’t analazying the issue with having guns against government over reach . It’s a legitimate reason . The facts the fore fathers knew that an arm population keeps the government accountable against itself is brilliant . Confiscation always leads to governments totalitarianism eventually .
poverty has been the default position of humanity for 99% of our existence and income redistribution is not the reason poverty levels have decreased...welfare IS AN ADDICTION
Hey Dave, it’s your show, fair enough. However, your two-part interview with Mr. Pinker was some real weak tea. No challenging questions, thoughts, a real hug fest. I don’t think you brought your A game to this interview. At a minimum, please correct your guests when they refer to the U.S. as a “Democracy”. The FFs distrusted democracies and created a Constitutional Republic. Mr. Pinker has an infantile knowledge of guns, their purpose and I imagine the purpose behind the 2nd amendment. First, Koresh did not assault the government. Yes, he was way out there and the gov had a right to serve him with a warrant. However, he went into town every day; there was not need to conduct a military assault on the compound. Koresh’s compound was assaulted in Texas not Idaho. Pinker may have been referring to Randy Weaver, who while a survivalist was not attacking the government. One last thought; I would love to hear you challenge these humanists or Libertarians like yourself with the following question; “Mr. Pinker, how to do you respond to the premise that the United Stated was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and that the social cohesion, high-trust and productive society you live in in Cambridge, Mass is unique to the Christian social and moral foundation laid down by our FFs?” If I might be so bold Dave, you really must challenge a Humanist who thinks the miracle of the last 500 years is due to Humanism. Yes, Reason is a key principle but even the Greeks believed in virtue and being moral. At least, be a little provocative and ask Mr. Pinker to cite an example of where a humanist moral code has been in play. My point is that we all live off the benefits of the Christian moral code of our Founding. Doesn’t mean Christians are perfect or that you have to be Christian to be moral.......but our American experiment is arguably the best ever laid out by man. All the Best.
Do you always complain when it's a hug fest? or only when the speaker has an opposing view point to yours? Rubin is literally notorious for being a hugger, lol.
Honestly, after so many unchallenged guests this program is seeming more like a platform for people to sell their new book than anywhere a discussion would take place. Always the same excuse of "the best way to know someone is to let them speak", no, the best way to know someone is to talk to them and find out how well they can support their own notions. I mean, Bob Sagat ffs. So many guests, never probing for wisdom, never challenging the argument to strengthen it, just milquetoast for an hour straight.
"Mr. Pinker, how to do you respond to the premise that the United Stated was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and that the social cohesion, high-trust and productive society you live in in Cambridge, Mass is unique to the Christian social and moral foundation laid down by our FFs?" Well, the proper response to this is that "The USA is not founded on Judeo-Christian values but rather secular ones." Religions don't have a monopoly on morality. They take irreligious moralities and warp them to suit their own needs.
Is the EPA graph in his book from the EPA itself? because the federal governament goes around parading on how much they cleaned the air yet if you look at the trend decades before , the concentration of air pollution had been falling at the same rate it did after EPAs creation since the 1930s ,the introduction of the EPA had 0 impact on what was a privious evolving trend , curiouslly enough the EPA never shows you a graph of the pollution trend line before the implementation of the EPA
I have to criticize Pinker on guns because there is a lot of data and there is no evidence that more guns equals more crime so I think he should do his research like he seems to have done with the other topics. He also ignores the hundreds of thousands of lives saved by people owning a personal gun as well as the fact that not everyone lives near cops or that we have the right to protect our own lives.
The whole gun debate is stupid even if current gun crime was 100% caused by guns it wouldn't matter. The whole point is that we need protection from the government. Anything we can do ourselves is nothing compared to what the government can do to us.
Tyler Clark hundreds of thousands of lives saved by guns LOL, gun nuts always bring this stupid point up, show some evidence as you just asked pinkler to do the same. Wheres the evidence of that dumbass claim?
Pinker isn't saying that guns cause crime. He saying that, in the long run, when people take the law into your own hands, that inevitability creates honour cultures which are necessarily violent. That "vengence belongeth to the judge" is one of the primary reasons for the historical rise of Europe. Again, this is a _long term_ view. So own guns, but just don't think that that enables you to take the law into your own hands. I think most gun owners are fine with this sentiment.
Less guns means less death, period. And guns won't protect you from the corporate-government state, they fucking own your ass, and your guns didn't do shit. It's the 21st century dumb fucks!
He seems like genuine and caring guy but I don't really agree with his stance on guns. If you looked at the stats on gun violence you would arrest every fatherless Democrat the second they step foot in a gun free zone. Also, I think it's a bit naive to think that you can change any government with words and political campaigning. I believe Jefferson disagreed as well. You can tell he doesn't get guns and probably has never used one.
My gripe with libertarians is that they seem to take docile human behavior for granted and are largely ignorant of what lawless societies actually look like. People are only docile when they are fed and have a roof over their heads. A central government is oppressive as hell, and that is the point. Regulating acceptable behavior is far better than letting everyone simply do whatever they want. If you think libertarian paradise would look like Montana does now, with peaceful tranquility, the more accurate depiction is the Balkans in the early 90s, with warlords engaging ethnic cleansing.
No agenda, Pinker is the epitome of kindness, optimism and nuance.
This is first Rubin Report I've viewed, so I don't know what they are generally like, but these are the sort of discussions we should have. An intelligent interviewer (a libertarian), and an intelligence interviewee (a liberal) showing mutual respect and understanding. Everyone gains, interviewer, interviewee, and, most importantly, the viewers. What more can you hope for.
Steven Pinker is an absolutely amazing man, I like everything about him, the way he speaks, manners, politeness, the calmness of his voice it's all, in summary, making a great picture of greatly educated, reasonable, calm and pleasant gentleman that is cool to listen to, his ideas is the most progressive in the real sense of this word, he got a very broad area of knowledge and understanding of the processes in the world in different domains, that's kind of people we need to learn from.
Agreed!
#FreeDankula
You can't spank the dank?
+
#GrosslyOffensive
Two great heads of hair.
Rotem Eren Jew hair
Not quite a Jew-fro tho.
Another terrific interview, Dave. You're one of my favorite subs!
Steven Pinker thinks on another level. Great interview.
Looking at this guy reminds me that I should call my grandmother and see how she is.
Been two years. How is she?
@@gessie She still hasn't answered the phone, and boy is my arm tired.
One of the most sane people on earth. Bravo.
I'm glad Dave pushed back on Dr. Pinker a bit concerning the government. A lot of times these "Futurists" have this warped idea that government will solve all our problems. But Dr. Pinker is still cool and I want to get his book! Thanks Dave!
I like this guy. I don't agree with him on everything, but I like him. Very smart!
...which is the reason I like the Rubin Report!
It would be weird to agree with someone on absolutely everything they said. That's called blind worship. You sir have what's known as an open mind and that's great.
I just like so much how Dave treats his guests. Well done.
I don't agree with Steven Pinker on a lot of issues but he is someone that I think i could come to agreeable comprises with.
Dave, you're conversational skills have improved so much over the time since you've started this channel(you were always a good conversationalist, but you've improved). Great guest and Great Job.
the on thing im not on line with pinker is this new study about free speech because u wont find ppl saying i am against free speech. its rather they believe and value freespeech as long as for them whatever was said isnt hatespeech and that the problem today, hatespeech musst be defined by the intention of the one saying things and not how it is among alot of ppl that hatespeech is whatever hurts ur feelings
Sven N.
It's akin to our politicians who "support the second ammendment " and want to ban all assault-murder-death-kill-weapons-of-mass-destruction which comprises most firearms.
Sven N. - Great observation!
This episode got me thinking how America can be on the same page as Americans. These principles and values I believe everyone can agree with. Now our media and politicians needs to follow suit.
Just ordered the book of Enlightenment.
Contrary to what they said at the beginning about "social media making you stupid", just listening to Pinker talk and explain things makes me feel like I'm getting smarter by the the minute! 🤓
As I scroll through a sea of vids about the YTHQ shooting, I see Pinker and Rubin reassuring me that there's hope for humanity.
Click. Like. Watch. In that order.
Great to see Steve Pinker on your show Dave! A true voice of reason.
Very enjoyable conversation.
Steven Pinker: best hair in the business!
In one breath he speaks about our short sightedness about history, and in the next breath he speaks about how democracy and representative government is the only viable mechanism for fighting oppressive government.
It's amazing that such a gentle man can trigger people XD
Yet another Rubin Report interview with somebody discussing their book where Dave shows no indication of having ever opened it. He can't ask specific questions about the book because he hasn't read the book so every question ends up being some variation of "Aren't SJWs horrible?"
Is anyone else thinking he's kind of a calm Jordan Peterson? - Watching Pinker talk, there's almost a total dispassion to his demeanor. Not by any means a bad thing, just an observation. But it is a stark contrast to JBP.
The rebirth of the Ancient Greeks gave rise to the Renaissance and Enlightenment.
What worries me, is even though he is right that the extreme Left and extreme Right are not the majority. It doesn't take a majority to radically change a Country for the worse. If you look at history, it was almost always a very loud and active minority that brought about the Nazi's and the Communists. What really has me worried being a Canadian, is this extreme Leftism is coming from PHd students, and our higher, and now in some Provinces, our lower education system.
This is the troubling fact. Who is going to be working and giving advice to our Government in the future? Who is going to be hired as the next generation of teachers? Who are going to be the next appointees to our court system. The current government is a disaster, already trying to change the court system due to a Farmer who shot a Native young man. And the farmer was found innocent.
They of course, instead of going by facts, jumped right to the racism card, and politically interfered with the courts by making statements, basically calling this ruling "Racist", not exactly in those words, but definitely implied. And are now trying to pass a bill to make sure that in any case of a native individual being tried. The jury will basically have to have other natives in it. They of course missed the facts that tons of natives were interviewed, and could not be unbiased. That's just one small case of these extreme Leftists, governing by feelings, instead of facts. Same with the new Gun Laws they are proposing. Because of shootings that happened in another flipping country! They were even busted by the CBC, fudging the facts on gun crimes rising. And that coming from the CBC, is pretty inditing. I have voted Liberal when I was younger, never again.
Fantastic conversation. I appreciate how Steven Pinker thinks things through issue by issue rather than settling for the intellectual shortcuts afforded by blind partisanry.
Thank you, Dave, for leading the professor right down the merry path to explaining the horrors of government gone awry in Venezuela or under fascists or communists last century directly after having him say how silly it is to imagine that citizens of a country would need guns to bring down an authoritarian government. I wonder if he will catch the gaping hole in his logic! Proud of Dave for knowing exactly how to expose this without calling him out! The time frame for this is 14:25 to 17:43.
No comments yet? Ive never been here. Im scared.
Mimo Slavich don't worry I got you fam
Mimo Slavich lol
On youtube that moment in time is called "First!!!!!"
I always thought thats exactly what I'd do, but then the moment came and then things didnt seem so straight forward.
Steven Pinker would have you believe that radical Leftism on college campuses is "probably overblown" while laws regarding compelled speech are being passed in his home country of Canada. I don't know how severe things have to get before people like Pinker start taking the threat seriously.
He lives in a bubble and sees what he wants. Liberty is shrinking everywhere but it's like the frog in the metaphoric pot.
He said it himself in the video he just looks at trends which are written by leftists so it's not a real problem it's a good thing.
He loves to throw "progressivism bla bla" talk into everything. Probably in denial about his cult having taken over the entire West and being the new fascism. Nazis probably denied too.
That sounds like absolute thinking.The world rarely works that way.
The views seem compatible to me. It is perfectly well possible, and seems legit, that only a small portion of the campus left, wants to shut down opposing view... same as on the right. Indeed that their numbers are going down.
And yet that at the same time, that group is getting more and more extreme in their views, and have crossed the line to actually being violent thugs. Indeed it would make sense that this very behavior would convince most moderates to abandon such views. Thus, the percentage would shrink, but the severity and impact would increase.
Your really not thinking. See the comment above me. That is reasoning.
I'm as anti stupidity as anyone, but I won't join the stupid anti-stupidity cult, when the data shows the opposite.
I felt a bit embarrassed for Mr. Pinker when he expressed that his understanding of the Second Amendment to be that it allows people to be judge and jury and even worse when he said that we can vote out a tyrannical government. I don’t claim to be a sage, but I have lived in the developing world for almost two decades and uniformly, the populace is disarmed and can only own shotguns or a single-shot rifle. The governments and criminals are fully armed and often take advantage of the people. To protect from criminals, where finances allow, the homes are surrounded by walls and all homes have bars on the windows. The people are very much at the mercy of criminals, gangs and bandits. Our FFs specifically created the Second Amendment, building on English common law with a robust debate and discussion on the importance of an armed citizenry. I’m sure Mr. Pinker has much to contribute to society but in my opinion, due to his lack of knowledge of the Second Amendment and most likely no experience living in the “disarmed” developing world, he cannot be taken seriously on this issue. Cheers
He went full liberal when guns came up.
Dave, if you're reading this, it would be very interesting to invite Noam Chomsky to The Rubin Report!
This is one of Dave's best interviews.
Great interview. Where's Sowell?
Dwight Dunker may be too old but would love it.
His comment about "Liberals not being willing to figure out which programs work and don't" reminded me of Thomas Sowell's story about going to work at the Labor Department as a Socialist and leaving as a Conservative when he realized that no one cared about measuring the effect of the programs they were running. Unfortunately, things haven't gotten better more than half a century later.
Anyone not seeing this on their subscription feed? Only on notifications
I disagree on some stuff with Pinker but certainly a clever wise guy, I like him.
Willem Dafoe will play him in the biopic.
Thank you Dave. It's been a delight
should black students be segregated - yeah right, you dont have that discussion anymore on the right...you now have it on the left...crazy times
Pinker is a big supporter of Thomas Sowell, and yet clearly has not read his work on gun control and other areas that he's speaking about here. He should do that.
At the 6:15 mark, Pinker shows his ignorance on fighting back against the government with guns. He's under the mistaken notion that government is always benign and will never change. History should've taught Pinker that no, Governments change. You can be in a Democracy and it can fall to tyranny very quick. A recent example is Venezuela. Venezuela voted in a Socialist Chavez and he started to exert control over the economy. His predecessor Maduro then got private firearms confiscated in 2012. Now, in Venzuela there are food riots in the streets and disarmed public is having to fight against their own police and military. ALL of this was voted into place in a Democracy, this tyranny. Please for the love of GOD Rubin, when someone brings up anti-gun stance and how we are a Democracy and we don't fight against the police, remind him that plenty of Democracies fall. The US is not some special snowflake, ALL nations fall eventually ALL. Having an armed populace is one guard against tyranny, take away the guns and tyranny follows. Look at the insanity going on in the UK right now turning into an Orwellian surveillance and think/say only what the state allows State, its turning into a nation very close to going into tyranny and the Brits have been disarmed.
garhent agreed fully .
Guns don't prevent tyranny. Unless you can think of an actual real-life example where it has, and not some hypothetical bullshit. Give me an example of where gun owners actually fought off military strength and prevented tyranny. I mean fighting in the street. No hypotheticals.
You need look no further than the founding of the U.S. as an example of a real world application.
Let's look at the Revolutionary War.
The British would have crushed the rebels if they had not managed to organize themselves into a proper army, with military discipline, cannons, tactics, strategy, logistics and chains of command. George Washington had experience fighting FOR the British in the French and Indian War.
Even then the British still would have won if France had not intervened with weapons, food, cash and critically, naval forces. In fact, the American leaders knew they could not beat Britain alone and only decided to revolt on the assumption of French military intervention.
Yes, the Minutemen and the hit-and-run tactics of various small units did play an important part in the war effort, but nowhere near a decisive one. Regular armies did. The farmers who owned muskets did not have cannon foundries in their backyards and didn't know anything about how to fight in units larger than guerilla bands.
When people voted for Chavez nobody knew he was going to become a Fidel Castro disciple but you could tell that if someone planned a military coup his government was not going to be a democracy
I admire his adhesion to the altruistic nature of humanity despite centuries of contrary evidence. Faith, even for an agnostic, seems to be an essential component of living a hopeful life.
Dave, as a longtime listener and fan for the past two years, I fear that your recent interviews are revealing a change in your rhetoric and mind. I’m sensing that your position as a libertarian is becoming paramount above all. I don’t understand how you can identify as a classical liberal and then give Pinker a hard time when he suggests how some government programs work and make life better. When Pinker was discussing how the EPA has been successful, the way you reacted made it seem like you don’t care or that it’s an inconvenient truth that you don’t like.
Don’t lose having an open mind and be careful about your own bias creeping in.
the best thing about pinker's appearances online?
that his talking points criticizing the authoritarian Left (the excesses of political correctness, online social justice, MeToo illiberalism etc) align so well with right-wing views that the most salient user-commentary comes from the right, and they are INFURIATED with his progressive views on religion and guns, as well as his statistics-driven approach to islamic terrorism
also many of them don't like that he's jewish
so you get lots of yahoos saying that he's an idiot, hypocrite, or wuss
its hilarious
keep it up, folks
I liked the first 2/3 of this. His big picture stuff is good. When you get down to specifics, his left-leanings come out (guns, etc.) but one could hardly expect less coming from a long time Harvard tenant. I was kind of surprised on the gun exchange that he didn't have a better grasp of the "science" behind why more guns does not equate to more violence (quite the opposite even in places like Switzerland and Finland as well as the US). But even the smartest among us have our weaknesses. Sam Harris can't seem to let the religion thing go either to the point of being childish about it sometimes. Good interview overall!
I like this format. Great discussions. Also, I have a suggestion: It would be nice if you could get William Lane Craig on or something. Maybe Alvin Plantinga. Some intelligent christian apologist, at least. Thank you very much.
I think there are a ton of perspectives that you could easily weigh 2 options on, for instance the gun control debate. Group A, wants guns with very limited controls. Group B, wants guns to go away because they see constant gun violence in the news and they perceive them as a threat. However no one really explores group C, maintaining constant gun safety and proper firearm storage. A majority of criminals do not obtain their weapon legally, they are usually stolen. Some elderly guy throws his pistol wrapped in a rag up in the closet and forgets he even has it. Someone breaks in stealing it and sells it on the street. Before you know it, that firearm has been involved in other crimes.
If you secure your firearms correctly with a floor mounted safe then no one can run in and take off with a firearm. I think there are many instances where option C, could in fact be the best option.
He had me until the gun stuff. He's speaking from a very privileged position of living in a "currently" peaceful country and system of government. He's looking at it from a "right now" screenshot of our situation and ignoring the long term preventative factor. He then immediately follows up with mentioning tyrannical western governments. So he conflicts with his own points within a span of a minute.
Simon Paul I know saying we need gun control is incredibly vague? What's the purpose of it and what will it accomplish? I know guns are quicker with bullets to kill, but you can say the same thing with a knife stabbing.
That is because conservatives like yourself are known to be more fearful people. Larger amygdalas where fear reigns. I am a liberal, I own no guns, and I do not walk around in terror that our government is going to behave like some Gestapo.
Fear drives people to conservative solutions, but not all of us are so frightened of the dark, or the unknown, or the immigrant, or life without God and eternity.
ubuu7 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I'm not a conservative, I don't believe in God (I'm an anthiest) and I'm not afraid of the dark as I have faced death at an early age. And I'm most definitely not afraid of immigrants as my 2 sisters are adobted from Russia. But they came here legally obviously.
Your assumptions are quite revealing of your incapacity to have a thoughtful discussion. So not gonna bother wasting my time with you.
ah ok, so an atheist "classical liberal" type like Rubin then, who is completely aligned with the right. Not that far off after all.
ubuu7 you know if you spent more time actually thinking instead of trying to label people with some BS identity you might actually have something worth saying.
And how is Rubin aligned with the right? Because he believes in individual freedom? Does the left not believe in individual freedom or something? 🙄
Thanks Dave!
More talk I see. "These philosophers could not influence their own neighborhood. But this one man Jesus filled the world with men that loved righteousness and no longer feared death.” [Athanasius]
The EPA is a disaster. My libertarian leanings would put me in the camp of trashing the whole thing, BUT you could fix the worst of the EPA by simply divorcing the people writing the regulations from the people who enforce the regulations.
Best interview yet to date.
Owning a gun DOESN'T make you want to become Judge Dred.... wanting the best tool to protect yourself (in many situations not all) doesn't change someones mind to all the sudden become a vigilante.
The argument that an armed citizenry is useless against the military is true, but it’s also not the point. The military & police back off when there is an armed resistance. The soldiers & police think twice. Without the armed resistance the police would just do whatever they want without resistance.
Want a modern example? The Bundy standoff. Whether you agree or disagree with what occurred (chances are most have been misinformed by the media) the armed resistance worked & the government changed its position & courts ruled in their favor.
fluff muff what about when the US invaded Afghanistan and the taliban still controls 70 percent of the country. I don’t think the military can defeat an armed populace
TK UA Sorry, I misread you reply the first time.
I agree. The military cannot defeat an armies citizenry unless they are attempting mass genocide.
fluff muff
I think the Bundy standoff is even more relevant when compared to Vietnam and Afghanistan. We were willing to bomb infrastructure and suffer collateral deaths when fighting in these two countries, and If it ever came to the point where there were armed standoffs or conflicts between the gov't and citizens in several places across the country, things would spiral out of control in a heartbeat if the same tactics that were used overseas were used here. The greater US population would very quickly turn and rise up against the government.
The Internet Police I’ll go a step further, I think the US military would turn against the government if the government gave the order to attack citizens. This is my fear of autonomous robotic warfare & drones. The elimination of the conscience of the soldier.
fluff muff
That's a good point. I better start stocking up on anti-drone shotshell. :)
The last part transcribed for anybody who wants to be able to repeat it as eloquently as Pinker does
"Here's some hardening facts; the Flynn effect that IQ scores have been rising by 3 points per decade for almost a century... Certainly the fact that extreme poverty has been plummeting I think is one of the greatest things that's ever happened, literally a 75% reduction in 30 years in global rate of extreme poverty. The rise of literacy: 90% of the worlds population under the age of 25 can now read and write. There's almost perfect parody now between girls and boys which is encouraging. Infectious diseases are in decline; malaria, tuberculosis, diarrhoea, we've vanquished small pox and sent it off into history, it's no longer a disease. We may do the same thing with polio.With guinea worm there's terrific progress being made. Values of toleration and what I think we would all agree are progressive values such as toleration of homosexuality, women's equality, the right to get a divorce, political participation, have believe it or not all been in gradual increase in every part of the world. Even in the most politically backward parts of the world, namely the Middle East and North Africa, there has been an increase especially when you compare generations. So the younger generations are much more open and sympathetic to liberal values than the older generation."
Very interesting interview, great to hear optimistic facts too!
My disagreement with Pinker on guns is about 5-10% off his grade (guns have stopped mass shooters in the past, and a well-armed populace is a deterrent against tyranny when Democracy dies by vote), but I love his kind, measured tone, and his perspective on everything else; he's not a race-baiting resentment-monger or a Starbucks-swilling anti-Capitalist, rather a true Progressive who wants to discuss solutions rather than smugly argue.
He gets a 90% in my book! A liberal I'd happily share a beer and discuss abortion with.
Guns have stopped _some_ mass shooters in the past, but that have caused _all_ mass shooters in the past.
I like listening to Pinker. I do find it fascinating that the more intelligent our species becomes, the less we know. Enlightenment, humanism, umm. Does Mr Pinker applaud the fact that morality, well-being and culture, in the west, has emerged in tandem with Christianity? Just as we inherit our looks etc, perhaps we inherit our morals and culture. The very fabric of the Word (large W) appears to be knitted into our DNA.
I have this wet dream where there is a televised event at a round table that seats Steven Pinker, Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, the reanimated corpse of Christopher Hitchens, and any other open minded and intellectually honest titans of logic.
I really enjoy Pinker’s fact-based, well-reasoned approach to some of the positive outgrowths of the Enlightenment (or, more accurately, ideas that came of age at a similar time to the Enlightenment). However, he truly glosses over much of the harm the Enlightenment has done to ethics, philosophy, and moral intelligibility. Also, it gets really trite and a little boring when he treads into the old, familiar safe space of garden-variety academic liberalism. I almost always enjoy Dave Rubin’s civil and fair interviews, though.
3:02 there are different classes of people who deny that we've made progress. Pinker asserts that we've made progress as if it were a fact. Sure, we've progressed in a lot of unimportant ways (e.g. less sexism, less racism, less murder, less war), but we've regressed in several horrible ways (e.g. increasing suicides, increasing depression, anxiety, ADHD, insomnia, stress).
Pinker’s a smart guy
Well I am dead because I wanted to be enlightened and not be "Judge, Jury, and Executioner" against my attacker.... If only everyone were as enlightened as me, maybe we could live in a fantasy land where guns aren't useful as a self defense tool.
AnCap I would like a world where violence is not a reality. Sadly I don't think that world is today or any time soon.
Aron Linde
The way the world is changing is a good reminder that we have been fortunate to have lived through a relatively long period of peace and stability, and that, to your point, it never lasts. We ignore that reality to our peril.
Pinker's view on climate change is a great example of he knows better and has passed judgement even though on many fronts what needs to be done is wide open for debate. If he would study history he would see a strong correlation between humanities well being and warmer temperatures and the magnificent greening of the earth due in part to increased plant food in the atmosphere CO2. Where I live every degree warmer makes my life easier. CO2 GOOD
Steven Pinker: brilliant in many ways; naive in many ways.
Yeah, he is right on the money on a lot of things with a great grasp of the evidence. But on others, it's obvious he hasn't looked at the evidence and is just speaking an opinion, or he is purposely ignoring the facts. I like him overall though. I bet it's a tough position for him to be in, trying to ride the fence and cater to both sides.
Equality for women, rights for gays, decrease in poverty, free speech, democracy all cannot coexist with Islam. What does Pinker have to say about the future of Europe?
I wish he would look at a particular stat nationwide: How many law abiding gun owners intervened in a crime to save someone's life
or thwarted a robbery or saved their own life (home invasion) over the last 5 years. Secondarily, if you go with the premise that most people
are good caring people, why wouldn't a nationwide gun education and safety program prove effective in decreasing gun violence. Government
mandated of course, so he could feel good about it. 🤔
Dave why haven't you yet interviewed Dr. G Edward Griffin who is a diehard individualist like us.
I'd just like to say that when he talked about the availability heuristic, as an AP Psych student (not even in college yet) I knew what he was talking about. I feel knowledgable lmfao.
I like Pinker for the most part but the section on guns was painful to watch. He says that it's ridiculous to think about shooting back at the police, then mentions how in some countries you can be hauled away by the police for criticizing your political leaders. I hate to break it to you Pinker, but that is EXACTLY the point of the 2nd Amendment. Should such things as you mentioned happening in Venezuela or Turkey occur in the U.S., that is precisely when it is reasonable to use force against the Police. Thankfully that is not necessary at the moment, (as in Western countries in general the systems of checks and balances are operating at least reasonably well) but thinking it will definitely never be is naive.
Dave who do you agree with more Steve Pinker, Sam Harris, or Michael Shermer?
BTW that optimistic view of Pinker has been also on Matt Ridley, another brilliant guy you should know about.
This guy is a classic academic. Too much belief in government and basic human goodness. Very limited in his views on liberty and freedom. Please set him up with Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder, maybe even Peterson.
We are a Republic... Why does no one say that anymore?
Shit. I'm so happy this conversation happened.
I pretty much agree with everything that Pinker says. Yes, our society has a lot of good stuff going for it. Yes, it's crazy to talk about shooting back at police. Government can be good or bad or ineffective, but take an even approach to assessing it, and some things only government can accomplish. Rubin can't get him to agree that government is bad, kind of funny.
15:39 I wholeheartedly agree.
Outsource Justice to a 3rd party? Maybe try calling it outsourcing safety. You don't have to fatally shoot an attacker to stop violence/ the threat of violence.
"We have this thing called democracy, when the government becomes to oppressive we speak out against it"... Uhm, why don't you tell that to the Chinese and North Koreans. If the government becomes oppressive to time for speaking against it is waaayyy past, BECAUSE the government won't care who speaks out against it.
If the founding fathers of the US had his view on guns they would never have been able to administrate a war against their former state and king.
Replace tornados with guns and he's spot on
15:56 good grief...this is why people should only talk about the things they know.
Yes, fool...Not only is the only way we got a Democracy is via GUNS (yes, everywhere in the world got Democracy via violently taking down a government that didnt allow it or from those that did like Canada via their British masters), it is the only way to hold onto it. Go on and try to VOTE and use your VOICE when a government takes those rights away if you cannot FORCE them to stop.
And for what came after 16:50 we ARE under threat of having that right taken away NOW via ultra PC radicals trying to make offending someone a crime. Canada bringing a professors assistant up on hate crime charges for showing a VIDEO in class...Britain not allowing Conservatives into Britain because of their political views...
If you think segregation isn't a thing anymore, I invite you to look into Evergreen College, black people taking vacations away from white people, "blacks only" safe spaces, etc. It would appear that the idea of segregation is alive and well, Mr. Pinker.
On the knee-jerk reaction to say that government eliminated pollution just look at the cities, I ask "Or did they simply reduce the cities, where there are fewer people & fewer industries?" Great job government, your regulatory policies moved industrial jobs overseas and replaced the countryside with subdivisions...I mean cleaned the air.
On many statistics, Pinker always finds a way to say “let’s look at the bright side!” Today the percentage of people in poverty in the US is about half of what it was by the end of the fifties. Great! But wait - the number people in poverty has more than doubled, while the number of Americans doubled. Similar with homelessness, and much worse with untreated mental health. At the same time the institutions that deal with these issues, social workers, folks who help with food stamps and winter heating cost support, are almost gone, their offices consolidated and their budgets slashed more and more. The only thing left until the end is a bunch of bureaucrats, and even those are replaced more and more by online methods. Often not accessible, most of that is about catching 22. If you are poor and want help you better get your papers in order, in fact you need to be spanking clean. In some states you even have to pee in the cup because of “war on drugs” and “war on poverty” ideology. The main method to reduce poverty in America is by making it more and more complicated to be poor. Oh you didn’t file a tax return last year - well too bad, go to hell. Fewer and fewer of the overburdened caseworkers are friendly, this atmosphere is poisonous, with the exceptions of a few good souls who actually care. Anyone who becomes depressed or down trodden is likely to just give up. A society that gave in to the belief that poverty is just a little problem, and only somehow spoils the pretty view, is bound to give the task of solving the problem to people with insufficient understanding with low pay, or to experts who can create just the right kind of data needed to confirm the sugarcoating and whitewashing of social reality, which the politicians in charge prefer to confirm the success of their policies.
All these comments about guns protecting against tyrannical goverments: This MAY have worked 200 years ago (but probably not). Nowadays, if the police and military were to remain _entirely_ loyal to the goverment (for some reason), a few armed civillians won't be able to do jack shit. You'd have to hope for outside intervention, but if you're the US that won't happen. Basically, you're screwed.
Pinker, is very (VERY) collectivist. Economically he's a typical Keynesian, and he wants so "solve" everything inside the existing "system", which is pretty much rotten to the bone. He talks about free markets but he doesn't want it. He want's state controlled (regulated) markets, which is the main reason for corruption, in politics and business. People like him should never have power, but he's a brilliant critic.
it's nice to hear another person note that pre-summer 2016, the term alt-right had a very different meaning than it receive once it entered popular lexicon following clinton's speech reducing the term to the politics of its coiner.
I was able to listen until he said "...that's why we have this thing called democracy...". Never mind that every single "civilized" nation that has outlawed civilian use of guns has crime equal to, or higher than, the USA when those figures are proportioned for population difference.
To come at it from a different angle, if personal safety/security _doesn't_ start and end with the individual, then why don't we put our faith in the government to protect us from STDs and unwanted pregnancies instead of wearing condoms and using birth control?
Simply put, if the time comes where guns are needed to oppose a tyrannical government or ruling body, then it stands to reason that the time when voting by other means would affect change are long past valid consideration. One can argue that the only reason Canada was able to negotiate for _their_ independence was because England had already been beaten once and didn't wish to be again so soon.
The US has a homicide rate of 5.35 per 100 000 citizens (i.e. proportioned for populace difference), this puts the US just above Cuba. I would not call Cuba a civilized nation. Western European countries score 2 or below and most of them have heavy restrictions on civilian gun ownership.
What you are saying is simply factually incorrect.
As for why people don't put faith in the government in protecting them from STD's the simple answer is that most people realise that the government can't reliably protect the populace from STD's. The government is just a group of people with a governing function, they aren't omnipotent gods.
Pinker mentions "politicized denial of climate change" science and at another part of the interview talks of the importance of testing hypotheses.
I'm scratching my head.
Hasn't there been over 100 computer models -- constituting hypotheses -- predicting catastrophic man-made climate change? And haven't they all failed?
Pinker is not a crazy leftist so that's a great start, but I find him to be sort of an ivory tower, limousine, atheist liberal; not a danger to the country but simply disagree with his world view.
Wendovor Productions that’s because he is an actual liberal, most “liberals” are just democrats; just like most republicans call themselves conservatives but are just establishment republicans big difference in both cases in my opinion.
He's definitely in a dream world of a sort. Let's see how great he thinks things are when he gets Bret Weinstein'ed.
His books are better, trust me
If you're theistic that's understandable, but since that doesn't come up here I wonder what specifically in the interview you disagree with.
Quite true. His elitism even isn't as bad as most, but he does have somewhat of a blind spot.
Most of all he's a moderate who can look at other views. It was worth noting that in this interview he actually places himself now as a centrist (afaik in the category of, 'that which used to be called the left')
Great interview but I believe pinker isn’t analazying the issue with having guns against government over reach . It’s a legitimate reason . The facts the fore fathers knew that an arm population keeps the government accountable against itself is brilliant . Confiscation always leads to governments totalitarianism eventually .
poverty has been the default position of humanity for 99% of our existence and income redistribution is not the reason poverty levels have decreased...welfare IS AN ADDICTION
Hey Dave, it’s your show, fair enough. However, your two-part interview with Mr. Pinker was some real weak tea. No challenging questions, thoughts, a real hug fest. I don’t think you brought your A game to this interview. At a minimum, please correct your guests when they refer to the U.S. as a “Democracy”. The FFs distrusted democracies and created a Constitutional Republic. Mr. Pinker has an infantile knowledge of guns, their purpose and I imagine the purpose behind the 2nd amendment. First, Koresh did not assault the government. Yes, he was way out there and the gov had a right to serve him with a warrant. However, he went into town every day; there was not need to conduct a military assault on the compound. Koresh’s compound was assaulted in Texas not Idaho. Pinker may have been referring to Randy Weaver, who while a survivalist was not attacking the government.
One last thought; I would love to hear you challenge these humanists or Libertarians like yourself with the following question; “Mr. Pinker, how to do you respond to the premise that the United Stated was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and that the social cohesion, high-trust and productive society you live in in Cambridge, Mass is unique to the Christian social and moral foundation laid down by our FFs?” If I might be so bold Dave, you really must challenge a Humanist who thinks the miracle of the last 500 years is due to Humanism. Yes, Reason is a key principle but even the Greeks believed in virtue and being moral. At least, be a little provocative and ask Mr. Pinker to cite an example of where a humanist moral code has been in play. My point is that we all live off the benefits of the Christian moral code of our Founding. Doesn’t mean Christians are perfect or that you have to be Christian to be moral.......but our American experiment is arguably the best ever laid out by man. All the Best.
Do you always complain when it's a hug fest? or only when the speaker has an opposing view point to yours? Rubin is literally notorious for being a hugger, lol.
Honestly, after so many unchallenged guests this program is seeming more like a platform for people to sell their new book than anywhere a discussion would take place. Always the same excuse of "the best way to know someone is to let them speak", no, the best way to know someone is to talk to them and find out how well they can support their own notions.
I mean, Bob Sagat ffs. So many guests, never probing for wisdom, never challenging the argument to strengthen it, just milquetoast for an hour straight.
"Mr. Pinker, how to do you respond to the premise that the United Stated was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and that the social cohesion, high-trust and productive society you live in in Cambridge, Mass is unique to the Christian social and moral foundation laid down by our FFs?"
Well, the proper response to this is that "The USA is not founded on Judeo-Christian values but rather secular ones." Religions don't have a monopoly on morality. They take irreligious moralities and warp them to suit their own needs.
Is the EPA graph in his book from the EPA itself? because the federal governament goes around parading on how much they cleaned the air yet if you look at the trend decades before , the concentration of air pollution had been falling at the same rate it did after EPAs creation since the 1930s ,the introduction of the EPA had 0 impact on what was a privious evolving trend , curiouslly enough the EPA never shows you a graph of the pollution trend line before the implementation of the EPA
I have to criticize Pinker on guns because there is a lot of data and there is no evidence that more guns equals more crime so I think he should do his research like he seems to have done with the other topics. He also ignores the hundreds of thousands of lives saved by people owning a personal gun as well as the fact that not everyone lives near cops or that we have the right to protect our own lives.
The whole gun debate is stupid even if current gun crime was 100% caused by guns it wouldn't matter. The whole point is that we need protection from the government. Anything we can do ourselves is nothing compared to what the government can do to us.
Pinker only likes violence if his god govt approves it. Worthless hypocrite.
Tyler Clark hundreds of thousands of lives saved by guns LOL, gun nuts always bring this stupid point up, show some evidence as you just asked pinkler to do the same. Wheres the evidence of that dumbass claim?
Pinker isn't saying that guns cause crime. He saying that, in the long run, when people take the law into your own hands, that inevitability creates honour cultures which are necessarily violent. That "vengence belongeth to the judge" is one of the primary reasons for the historical rise of Europe. Again, this is a _long term_ view. So own guns, but just don't think that that enables you to take the law into your own hands. I think most gun owners are fine with this sentiment.
Less guns means less death, period. And guns won't protect you from the corporate-government state, they fucking own your ass, and your guns didn't do shit. It's the 21st century dumb fucks!
He seems like genuine and caring guy but I don't really agree with his stance on guns. If you looked at the stats on gun violence you would arrest every fatherless Democrat the second they step foot in a gun free zone. Also, I think it's a bit naive to think that you can change any government with words and political campaigning. I believe Jefferson disagreed as well. You can tell he doesn't get guns and probably has never used one.
My gripe with libertarians is that they seem to take docile human behavior for granted and are largely ignorant of what lawless societies actually look like. People are only docile when they are fed and have a roof over their heads. A central government is oppressive as hell, and that is the point. Regulating acceptable behavior is far better than letting everyone simply do whatever they want. If you think libertarian paradise would look like Montana does now, with peaceful tranquility, the more accurate depiction is the Balkans in the early 90s, with warlords engaging ethnic cleansing.