No, it was really bad and he came across as an as s hole, actually. He did this in every episode, but the one on climate change was so bad I had to turn it off. Instead of using, you know, science to disprove the deniers, he literally called them idiots and moved on. I mean, he’s not wrong but that’s not the Bill Nye of my childhood, and it’s just bad television.
He is… but this does not necessarily mean Pinker is wrong. Taleb accuses Pinker of making faulty statistical predictions. He does not! He is in fact careful to be clear he is not making any forecasts. He suggest a narrative of what has happened and presents theories as to why that narrative is what it is. That said, as I read that narrative set forth by Pinker, I am wary of his interpretation of data. I don’t know how much of what he says is valid since I don’t have enough background to know how statistically significant his evidence is. Does a collection of mediocre significance data that all point to the same theory mean anything? I don’t know the answer to that. Although some of the points in the book are simply observations in human and society behaviors. They are not data extrapolations. But, if you can’t argue for an idea based on logical reasoning of non statistical observations, then I’m going to have be suspect of everything I read, including many of Taleb’s own points.
Yea, Taleb his self make this point. However, it is one of those thing he says that sound brilliant but seems over generalized to me. Yes, old sources have stood the test of time and new thinkers are unvetted by actual practice. However, I personally think it is silly to claim wisdom for antiquity is all we need to navigate the modern world. Personal liberties, the asset of free time, and the access to information make the modern world a profoundly different human experience.
I see now I asked the wrong question. lol… I should have said who are the most interesting modern thinkers. Nonetheless, glad I did. This is a great point.
Joe rogan is also good person to get non party line discussion of issues. And he let’s others say their piece and asks probing questions.
I like Arthur Brooks as well. He recently launched a podcast. And I started listening to Deborah soh recently after hearing her on Rogan. She’s interesting
This is wrong, you missed the point. Taleb argues his point using the actual underpinnings of mathematics and logical frameworks, demonstrating why linear mathematics, pattern recognition and our own psyche come up short against systems that are obviously non-linear and complex. Pinkers just takes mis-applied statistical analysis, makes conclusions using statistically insignificant datasets and then pushes a broader false narrative. It’s impossible to not read Pinkers and not come away with the idea that he’s presenting a new world era of peace. Really, it was best summed up by Aaron Brown on Quora on this topic:
Actually, it was Aaron Brown’s summery that originally inspired me to give Pinker a chance! You are correct in stating that I have over simplified Taleb’s beef with the book. In fact, when I was originally trepidatious when I was writing my 1st reply to you since I was tempted to use the the phrase “Pinker was creating narratives of the trends in violence”… word of death being “trends”… which when paired with mediocre data mean illusions projected on a complex world. In a way I am trying to convince my self to continue to read Pinker’s book since it really in a damning argument. However, I will say in Pinker’s defense that all of this controversy is focused only on one element of the book which is the observations of wars/ organized violence. The book is about more than that so I will continue my project in the practice of critically filtering what I read and try to hash out what is worth keeping and what needs to be neglected.
You listened to the debate! lol… my favorite part was a like a 30sec silence while a flustered Peterson sounded like he was tying up a noose to hang himself with…hahaha. My impression with who was “winning” kept going back and forth and at the end I concluded that Harris won in a practical sense but Peterson won from the perspective of some eternal over reaching and impractically elegant interpretation of “true” that has no application for humans of planet earth trying to communicate on what is actually “true”. haha!
I think the issue Peterson had with Harris’s interpretation of “true” was that it was dependent on the construct of science. Peterson’s interpretation transcends any construct and is based only an an inarguable binary of survival or non-survival.
Oh, I can’t stand that Sam Harris guy…he’s like a monotone robot spewing basic logic. He short-circuits when hit with with topics requiring higher-level thinking.
Listened to Peterson Vs Harris. Hate to say that Harris wins round one at least in my eyes. Harris knows how to frame an argument for sure. Dude is lb for lb best fighter in the category of framing arguments if you ask me. Peterson needs to concede some ground I think. Future discussion between them will be very interesting. Peterson is very careful not to misspeak and that is admirable but I think he is wrong here or I misunderstand what it is he is trying to defend with this “truth” that is encumbant on outcome (seems a bit hypocritical considering his stance on the postmodernists).
I was impressed by this too. As I followed along in the debate, there were some uncomfortable moments where I could feel the tension of not knowing how to proceed. At one point Harris really saved the stand still by coming up with those spontaneous scenarios. I really admired his ability to stay calm and put aside any personal attachment to the outcome of the debate. He said what needed to be said in order to progress forward. Very remarkable given it was his own podcast and part of the foundation of his various theses where under attack.
Sam Harris is a guy I’d like to like, but so far he’s not doing it for me. Granted, I haven’t even made it all the way through a single podcast, but anyone trying to pick up the mantle of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (the former still being alive, I guess he still raises his own mantle, but I digress) has a huge hurdle of douchebaggery to overcome in my eyes. Those two are some of the biggest as s holes the modern world has seen. And I hate them all the more because I agree with most of what they say.
I like to listen to certain guests on Harris’ show because there is a lack of podcasts with similar content. Some of his stuff is pretty outlandishthough.