1. Comment #386620 by Elli on June 10, 2009 at 11:47 am

Loved it. Thanks for posting this.

I eagerly await someone remixing Richard's grunting at the end into some awful dance music! (/end sarcasm)

Other Comments by Elli

2. Comment #386623 by nogodsever on June 10, 2009 at 11:56 am

Pinker rocks, but always distracted by the ginormous Jewfro.

Other Comments by nogodsever

3. Comment #386625 by JMCARVAS on June 10, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Ahah...yeah...he could be the lead singer of a rock band... Great mind though

Other Comments by JMCARVAS

4. Comment #386626 by Steve13 on June 10, 2009 at 12:15 pm

I love this site!
Thanks
I for one quite enjoy seeing the uncut/raw footage

Other Comments by Steve13

5. Comment #386631 by Lucas on June 10, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Awesome. Can't wait to watch this.

Also, I think Richard and Josh would probably appreciate it if people refrained from pointlessly criticizing the video for being uncut this time. We're off to a good start here; let's not spoil it. The hand biting was pretty heavy last time.

EDIT: Blew my freaking mind, Steven. Excellent work.

Other Comments by Lucas

6. Comment #386643 by bamafreethinker on June 10, 2009 at 2:01 pm

Pinker is a marvelous communicator - two of the best at work here. Their speech is almost like music to the ears!

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

7. Comment #386650 by Dhamma on June 10, 2009 at 2:25 pm

It's amazing only a few minutes of this hour-long material ended up in the documentary. If people only knew there's a treasure of it at RD.net.

Other Comments by Dhamma

8. Comment #386651 by Gregg Townsend on June 10, 2009 at 2:26 pm

I really enjoy how articulate both of these men are. Many times Steven is describing such complex ideas so clearly and rapidly that it's hard to think of this as a spontaneous conversation. It almost feels rehearsed. I suppose it shows how much he's thought about these ideas.

Great fun!

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

9. Comment #386668 by dimon on June 10, 2009 at 3:55 pm

will watch it again!!

Other Comments by dimon

10. Comment #386677 by Ygern on June 10, 2009 at 5:08 pm

That was fascinating, thank you for sharing it with us.

I actually think I prefer seeing uncut footage to watching edited interviews, it's far more interesting and engaging this way.

Other Comments by Ygern

11. Comment #386681 by robotaholic on June 10, 2009 at 5:22 pm

i like his hair and loved this interview

Other Comments by robotaholic

12. Comment #386684 by Alternative Carpark on June 10, 2009 at 5:31 pm

One day I will get round to reading Dr. Pinkers' books. He is, without a doubt, one of my favourite people to listen to.

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

13. Comment #386686 by Frankus1122 on June 10, 2009 at 6:04 pm

Ten minutes in and I have a new idea.
This site is like a continuing education course for me.
Thanks to all involved.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

14. Comment #386689 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2009 at 6:27 pm

I'm about 15 minutes in. A truly fascinating discussion. I loved the discussion about the possible origin of appreciation of music.

I am not sure I agree with Pinker about how you test for homosexuality being adaptive. It isn't necessary for homosexuals to provide more support for nephews and nieces than their straight counterparts for gayness to be an advantage for gene propagation. All that is required is for homosexuals to be no worse than straight people at providing support for reproductive siblings or parents.

Perhaps in hard times (such as higher population densities) it takes more people to raise and protect children, so having gay siblings who don't have offspring who can go off and get food is an advantage. (At least I think so - I am sure this could be expressed more formally, and models run to test it).

I am not saying in any way that this is true - I am just illustrating that the simple test suggested by Pinker is by no means enough to dismiss homosexuality as non-adaptive.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

15. Comment #386692 by Gnomeyhead on June 10, 2009 at 6:36 pm

I really enjoy the style of interviews held by Richard Dawkins. They are very personable and not stuffy like others tend to be. It seems like the interviews held by Richard tend to have a sort of ‘hey, let's go chat over there for a moment’ feel. It's very engaging and it's like we are sitting in on their intellectual conversation.

As a side note...does anyone else think Steven Pinker looks like an older version of Cillian Murphy? <3

Other Comments by Gnomeyhead

16. Comment #386698 by RightWingAtheist on June 10, 2009 at 7:22 pm

Robotic systems DO have a rhythm. It's the clock rate.

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

17. Comment #386706 by John_T on June 10, 2009 at 8:11 pm

Ah, wonderful. It makes me smile to hear Steven talk about music as likely non-adaptive, and by-product theories related to music, then mention that musicians hate the theory and they're like ultra-adaptationist. Steven stressing the importance of understanding that not everything has a functional explanation is welcomed.

Other Comments by John_T

18. Comment #386714 by Styrer- on June 10, 2009 at 9:21 pm

The nigh-on silent Marcus du Sautoy is an absolute waste of time. Pinker should have been the man, from the start.

Simonyi's fucked up. The natural successor to Richard, Steve Pinker, has more to say in a passing breath than has the current incumbent. But hey-ho.

Richard was superb here. Understanding a field with which we don't readily associate him, he was more than a match for Pinker. His pin-point accuracy in questioning Steven was a joy to listen to, as was his obvious ability in cutting out the shite from the shit in Pinker's rather waffly explications. While evolution informs both their views, there remains a distinct beat between the two; but probably nothing much to worry about.

For Richard to know even a little, scientist as he is, about proto-indo-european, makes me wish to doff my cap before him. Detailed linguistic discussion is no easy study to mix in with successful attempts at being a world-famous scientist.

Brilliant stuff. This is why I come here. More, please.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

19. Comment #386718 by Layla Nasreddin on June 10, 2009 at 10:09 pm

Fascinating stuff -- it didn't feel like an hour and eight minutes. I really perked up at the parts about linguistics and the evolution of languages (especially the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European), since that's one of my favorite subjects.

I also liked the way Pinker cleared the confusion, often fed by certain philosophers (Mary Midgley, ahem) and others, between using the concept of the selfish gene as a metaphor for the mechanics of evolution by natural selection and the totality of humans' motives for doing what they do. The genes are not the final arbiters of what humans do, they're only one element.

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

20. Comment #386722 by Styrer- on June 10, 2009 at 11:11 pm

Comment #386718 by Layla Nasreddin on June 10, 2009 at 10:09 pm

Yes, as if there was ever really any confusion. There is none at all. I have always made my first gift to family and friend 'The Selfish Gene'. If they don't get the point from that, then they will not make it to the others. Some have, some haven't.

It's a hard slog.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

21. Comment #386729 by yyy on June 11, 2009 at 12:07 am

Interesting discussion. If I was in this real time conversation, I'd be like 'uuuuuuh' every time it was my turn to speak rather than firing off a well articulated and thought out reply immediately after the other person.. not that I have much practice in oral communication, being a near hermit.

Its especially amazing to me during questions from the audience when someone spouts off an incoherent jumble of uninteresting nonsense disguised as a question, and the speaker always manages to answer it. I'd be like '...what?' or 'oh... next please'. Gotta love when hitchens says 'i'd be happy to take that as a statement'.

I like the biproduct idea, such as applied to music. Some music has an epidemic nature similar to religion/memes, spread by virus-spewing devices like music videos/concerts/radio.

Maybe the reason aural language appears easier to pick up is simply because young people get more exposure to it due to it being more practical and frequently used (its not like writing 'hand me that can of corn' on a portable chalkboard would be convenient). I don't know, but if jeff hawkin's 'hierarchical temporal memory' hypothesis is correct, perhaps the sensory medium of language (eyes/ears/speaking/writing/even touching (helen keller)) might be more of a footnote relative to what the brain is doing organizationally. So reading might be more of a medium/biproduct, and maybe a deeper more abstract mental process is what mostly leaves the mark on the genome.

Other Comments by yyy

22. Comment #386734 by bendigeidfran on June 11, 2009 at 12:45 am

Comment #386689 by Steve Zara

In Gould's exposition of Non Overlapping Manhysteria he described homosexuality as 'The exaption that approves the tool'.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

23. Comment #386764 by Koldtoft on June 11, 2009 at 2:40 am

Wunderbar

Other Comments by Koldtoft

24. Comment #386797 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2009 at 4:46 am

I really enjoyed this discussion. I have seen lectures by Pinker and his speaking style put me off a bit, but here, in a relaxed conversation with Richard so many fascinating ideas were expressed.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

25. Comment #386800 by decius on June 11, 2009 at 5:00 am

When Steven mentions the possibility of genocide being an adaptation, isn't he implying group selection? (Especially given the partial example he provides, involving two opposing tribes.)
If so, why does Richard confine himself to laughing?

I realise that this is just an interview, but...

Other Comments by decius

26. Comment #386804 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2009 at 5:09 am

Comment #386800 by decius

Surely it is just some kind of opposite of kin selection? In addition to being nice to those who are you kin, be very nasty to those who aren't.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

27. Comment #386808 by decius on June 11, 2009 at 5:17 am

Comment #386804 by Steve Zara

I don't know, that's why it would have been nice to hear some probing.
On the face of it, it sounds like a bit of a stretch. Tribes as exclusively kin-based clans implies heavy inbreeding.

Other Comments by decius

28. Comment #386811 by Steve Zara on June 11, 2009 at 5:20 am

Comment #386808 by decius

It sounds stretched to me too. There were several statements made by Pinker that could have been usefully explored in far more depth.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

29. Comment #386827 by Jonathan Dore on June 11, 2009 at 5:47 am

Styrer:

The nigh-on silent Marcus du Sautoy is an absolute waste of time. Pinker should have been the man, from the start.

A bit harsh there I think, Styrer. The man's only been in-post for a few months, he's had a major 3-part series on TV in that time ("The Story of Maths"), and I've heard a lecture by him in the Cambridge Darwin College series with another one coming up at the Aldeburgh Festival next week.

Pinker is certainly higher profile, but think for a minute: he's a tenured professor at the wealthiest university in the world, probably one of the half-dozen best-known people in their faculty ... can you imagine what sort of salary he's on? Hard to see what Oxford could have offered him to make him think seriously about moving.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

30. Comment #386834 by Gregg Townsend on June 11, 2009 at 5:57 am

Steve and Decius,

Yes, Pinker made several suggestions on behavior that made me go, hmmmm. The part I liked (in terms of the interview) was that he welcomed the criticism. His posture on the subject was very welcoming of critical enquiry.

That's what I thought was the important message of his interview.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

31. Comment #386838 by Anaximander on June 11, 2009 at 6:06 am

Why is there not a "Late Night with RD" TV-show at least once a week?

No need for 3D effects and music etc. Just RD touring the world with a camera like David Attenborough. With experts from biology, physics, astronomy etc.

Many more people could see this, if on television.

Other Comments by Anaximander

32. Comment #386845 by Nunbeliever on June 11, 2009 at 6:19 am

Great conversation. Steven Pinker is one of my favourite thinkers. And Richard Dawkins is of course Richard Dawkins :-) I just love him!!! It was so funny at 1:06:26. Oh, oh, oh, oh!!!! Richards is just so natural and spontaneous in contrast to many scientist who are utterly boring and incapable of attracting an audience. Five stars...

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

33. Comment #386868 by curly on June 11, 2009 at 7:05 am

I got a lot from this interview because Pinker explained why we can’t intuitively see how consciousness can emerge from just neurons. Pinker implied that our struggle to equate a pattern of firing neurons, with a subjective feeling is due to the fact that we have not evolved the ability to comprehend such phenomena; rather than it being physically impossible. In other words it may always be beyond us: RD’s comment that if our ancestors had been the size of neutrinos, then quantum mechanics would be obvious to us summarised this for me.
I really liked Pinker’s suggestion that this may be why philosophers have been agonising over the explanation of such phenomena for thousands of years, despite all of the pieces of the puzzle being known to them in some cases.

Other Comments by curly

34. Comment #386887 by selucidantiochus on June 11, 2009 at 8:00 am

I like Richard making them noises, highlairious (don't correct spelling mistake intentional)

Other Comments by selucidantiochus

35. Comment #386900 by Steve13 on June 11, 2009 at 8:40 am

Here is Steven Pinker destroying a TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clhWnOCzPT4

Other Comments by Steve13

36. Comment #386909 by Gregg Townsend on June 11, 2009 at 9:18 am

35. Comment #386900 by Steve13



Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

37. Comment #386910 by yyy on June 11, 2009 at 9:18 am

I think he displayed his canine teeth during that tv smashing.


EDIT: This forum's comment ranking algorithm probably needs a tweak (if anyone is pedantic enough to pay attention to it); I experimented with gregg's thumb's up reply and ranked it 'below average' (just an experiment, not a real rating) and you can now see it's gold and 'top' when sorted by rank despite a low rating. The fix would obviously be to make the default for all unranked posts be the middleground of 'ok' (if it even needs fixing). At least I know one of my previous 'silver' posts was one of the worst ranked, heh.

Other Comments by yyy

38. Comment #386913 by MarcCountry on June 11, 2009 at 9:28 am

Thanks for this.

One thing, off the top of my head: don't people bare more teeth when they're smiling, than when they're angry?

Just saying...

Love Dawkins, love Pinker. Keep up the good work, gentlemen.

Other Comments by MarcCountry

39. Comment #386956 by Colwyn Abernathy on June 11, 2009 at 11:48 am

Paul Ekman has done some compelling research on the subject of the evolutionary functions of emotions, specifically the connection between facial expressions and emotions. Currently reading his book "Emotions Revealed". Considerably fascinating.

Marc:

One thing, off the top of my head: don't people bare more teeth when they're smiling, than when they're angry?

Depends on the smile. People also smile but are feeling sad, or even scared. Tho the baring of teeth (as opposed to opening the mouth fully) seems to be a mammalian trait rather than a reptillian one.

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

40. Comment #386962 by friendlypig on June 11, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Like the Sapolsky lecture I need to watch this again.

Other Comments by friendlypig

41. Comment #387042 by Sittingduck on June 11, 2009 at 8:09 pm

Wow - How cool would it be to have a human brain on your bookcase? Like it's the most natural thing in the world... I would waste a lot of productive time wondering what unique and quirky things occured to it on occasion.

Other Comments by Sittingduck

42. Comment #387043 by Wosret on June 11, 2009 at 8:38 pm

14. Comment #386689 by Steve Zara

All that is required is for homosexuals to be no worse than straight people at providing support for reproductive siblings or parents.

I think he actually did say that teh gheyz were worse!

I do wonder why he left out lesbians -- most likely because they didn't get a say in having babies throughout most of human history. Yay us!

Other Comments by Wosret

43. Comment #387048 by Fuzzy Duck on June 11, 2009 at 9:56 pm

Fantastic interview.

And nogodsever, I adore your avatar. One of my favorite films, "There Will Be Blood."

-Kevin Schreck

Other Comments by Fuzzy Duck

44. Comment #387052 by elbuho on June 11, 2009 at 11:12 pm

Comment #386623 by nogodsever on June 10, 2009 at 11:56 am:
Pinker rocks, but always distracted by the ginormous Jewfro.

No visual distractions when you download the audio and listen to it on your iPod!
Vixy Converter does the job perfectly for me, and MP3Splitter to chop the file into a more manageable size.

Other Comments by elbuho

45. Comment #387067 by MikeJ on June 12, 2009 at 1:36 am

14. Comment #386689 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2009 at 6:27 pm

----------------

"I am not sure I agree with Pinker about how you test for homosexuality being adaptive. It isn't necessary for homosexuals to provide more support for nephews and nieces than their straight counterparts for gayness to be an advantage for gene propagation. All that is required is for homosexuals to be no worse than straight people at providing support for reproductive siblings or parents."

---------------

I'm not sure if I understand you properly here - Pinker's idea was that, if homosexuals were altruistic enough, they could increase the reproductive value of their relatives enough to compensate for their own lack of reproduction. I suppose that would mean that two extra nieces or nephews would be roughly equivalent to a full child of one's own.

But if homosexuals were merely 'no worse' than straight people, why would that be an advantage for gene propagation? They would suffer the disadvantage of not having any full children, but without the advantage of increased inclusive fitness relative to people that DID have their own children.

---------------

"Perhaps in hard times (such as higher population densities) it takes more people to raise and protect children, so having gay siblings who don't have offspring who can go off and get food is an advantage. (At least I think so - I am sure this could be expressed more formally, and models run to test it)."

-------------------

That's an interesting idea - although, in order for it to work I think you have to look at whether it's an advantage from the gay individual's point of view rather than his siblings', unless they can somehow influence whether or not he's a homosexual.

Actually, thinking about it, it might make the most sense to look at it from the mother's point of view. As I understand it, homosexuality might be determined by a group of genes whose effects are mediated by the uterine environment. So, if a mother 'knew' that she would have more grandchildren if she birthed a child that helped raise his nephews rather than have children of his own, it might be advantageous to influence his sexuality through changing the hormone balances in the uterus. Maybe this could be tested by checking whether women with gay offspring have more grandchildren than women with the same number of heterosexual offspring. :)

Actually, I've read that people are more likely to be homosexual if they have heterosexual older brothers, which might be explained by the above hypothetical situation.

Other Comments by MikeJ

46. Comment #387068 by Bonzai on June 12, 2009 at 1:38 am

MikeJ

But if homosexuals were merely 'no worse' than straight people, why would that be an advantage for gene propagation

Have you ever seen the homosexual gene? What does it look like?

Other Comments by Bonzai

47. Comment #387071 by MikeJ on June 12, 2009 at 1:53 am

Bonzai - the discussion is about how to explain how homosexuality could be adaptive if it had a genetic basis. In other words, it's hypothetical: no one's claiming to have found "the homosexual gene."

Other Comments by MikeJ

48. Comment #387076 by Bonzai on June 12, 2009 at 2:05 am

MikeJ

Thanks for the clarification. In other words, it is like debating what should we do to get Pinker stop beating his wife.

Other Comments by Bonzai

49. Comment #387077 by ridelo on June 12, 2009 at 2:07 am

Sorry, but off topic.
I remember a story from Richard Dawkins where he tells about an elder scientist who congratulates a younger colleague for refuting his own theory.
Does somebody know a link where I can find this?

Other Comments by ridelo

50. Comment #387080 by MikeJ on June 12, 2009 at 2:16 am

Bonzai - No, not particularly. If we were discussing how to cure homosexuality *given* that it had a genetic basis, that might justify a comparison with discussing how get him to stop beating his wife.

As it is, it's much more like discussing why wife-beating in general might be an adaptive behaviour if it had a genetic basis.

Other Comments by MikeJ