Thoughts on Steven Pinker?
I like Pinker. He is a legit contributor to his fields while also being very good at writing readable books for a general audience. There seems to be a fair amount of overlap between his books. I liked Words and Rules a lot, and I think it is a great starting point for anyone interested in linguistics. I disagree with him about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
hes' very problematic
ass
>>7506039
What?
>>7506039
>Steven Pinker
>>7506046
nose hair
>>7506062
Can't unsee
Babby's first "SJW critic". 4chan likes him because he isn't "tumblr" even though he displays a piss-poor understanding of what he speaks of.
>>7506103
>4chan likes him because he isn't "tumblr"
That's right - he's reddit.
>>7506129
Actually that's extremely 4chan too
4chan is literally reddit
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%224chan+is+literally+reddit%22
>>7506103
>piss poor
thnx coach
As far as I read his contribution in newspapers, he seems to be quite uneducated and I know many people who don't consider he's a “highly respected expert” at all.
>>7506103
Has he even butted heads with political correctness?
Outside of that obscure speech on Jewish intelligence?
>>7506278
He considers evolutionary psychology a legitimate field so the nutty, anti-science part of the left hates him
>>7506039
oh hi Taleb
>>7506033
pinker's not a contributor to linguistics, unless you count summarizing general linguistic theory for a popular audience.
also the sapir-whorf hypothesis is goofy
>>7507594
Well, he's most well know for his popular works, but he has made genuine contributions in the area of the acquisition of syntax and semantics.
Why do you think linguistic relativity is goofy?
>>7506043
pre-schooler meme
>>7507517
lelel
>>7507080
evopsych is garbage. if it wasn't so easy to prove anything with it, maybe i could see the value, but it can't predict, only explain existing phenomena. More often than not, it is used to defend the status quo and suppose behavior that is a result of culture is actually a result of genetics
>>7507594
>>7507684
Not the guy, but everything I know about what's wrong with Sapir-Whorf came from /r/badlinguistics. This story tells you everything you need to know:
>So I was at this Pagan solstice party last night (I'm not a Pagan, but I've got some friends who are), and while I certainly appreciate the intellectual curiosity of the crowd, the bad linguistics was strong with them. Most people had a strong interest in linguistics, but it was abundantly clear that I was the only one with any formal training.
>Sapir-Whorf was all up in it. Thankfully, one person recognized the distinction between strong Sapir-Whorf and weak Sapir-Whorf, but that was the extant of the knowledge, unfortunately. Nothing like the extrapolation of some interesting, but fairly contrived, experiments to define how we all think and act, no? It was at a queer/genderqueer co-op, so some of the Sapir-Whorf stuff got a little bit close to heart, unfortunately. A lot of genderqueer people seem to think that the only reason that people don't accept people don't fall into the gender binary is because of the presence of two grammatical genders in the language. Apparently, being radically inclusive when it comes to gender and sexual issues doesn't automatically come with a realization of rampant Anglo- and Eurocentrism...
>BUT, the real gem of the evening came after a discussion about a Shoshone ceremony that a few people present attended a few weeks back. One person said "Oh, there were so many people there that were saying 'I'm having such a hard time pronouncing some of the Shoshone words!' and I told them 'Oh, don't worry about it. Native American people have differently shaped teeth, so they can pronounce certain sounds that White people can't. Like this one - (makes some approximation of a dental stop) - I can pronounce it because I have Native blood."
>>7507777
Thanks for your surely expert opinion on a vast field of scientific research, Anonymous. Quads=truth.
>>7507777
you have a very popsci understanding of evopsych. you can test good evopsych hypotheses just like any other psych and see if it fits your theory or not.
>>7507871
>you have a very popsci understanding of evopsych
I know I'm on 4chan and to admit weakness is to admit defeat but...
Yes, you are correct. The version of evopsych I take umbrage with is that which suggests our society is organized in the racist, sexist, and hierarchical way it is because of genetic predisposition, not because of the cultural, economic, and various other factors that created that society. I also don't like the way popsci evopsych conflates "natural" order with morality, and indulges in fatalism when faced with the prospect of progressive change.
The irony, I suppose, of SQW's using evopsych to justify the continuation of the current order is that they no longer deny that a more egalitarian society would be better, but rather that it is impossible. It's an argument with foundations in sand, because we can always point to a more progressive society and show that it is possible.
>>7507517
Ha
>>7505533
How The Mind Works is one of my favorite books ever. All of his books are great, 2bh family.
He also replaced The Elements of Style w/a better style manual.
After reading The Language Instinct I became able to pretend to speak other languages, since his explanation of universal grammar was so good :D. Be careful w/all that pussy friends.
sense of style is utter trash
>>7508012
And since we can tell that 'because' didn't even occur to you, that you are a bullshitter. Ha-ha.
>>7507966
>a more egalitarian society would be better
PROOFS?
I mean, inequality and hierarchy are related, but separate concepts. You can have stark hierarchy in social treatment or status, without stark gulfs in other aspects of inequality (e.g. wealth, social power).
In that sense, I think some sense of hierarchy can be valuable.
>>7508022
it's self-evident to anyone who's read it. why would you take advice on style from someone who can't write?
>>7508046
Tipping your fedora to me isn't evidence or an argument.
I'm totally open to an argument. Prove your statement.I've read it.
>>7508155
>calling people fedora
>muh evidence
>Prove your statement
no self-awareness: the post
>>7508158
Explain your claim! If you can't, you're full of shit. Easy as that.
>>7508158
If I had the chance I'd bash your face in so badly that no one would judge your for wearing a fedora and tipping it at everyone.
>>7508163
>Explain your claim!
what part of self-evident don't you understand? if you read it and thought it was good then I weep for your mother for all the pain your autism has brought her.
>>7508170
>internet tough guy can't handle when people don't like his favourite shit writer
i'm very intimidated woah
go back to reddit
>>7508189
>someone doesn't want to engage with me
>must be they didn't read the book
sure smells like projection in here
>>7508183
So you didn't read it and/or can't form an argument. That's fine.
>>7508202
And why is it trash?
>>7508216
read it and form your own opinion
>>7508216
I did. It isn't trash. But Mr Inarticulation says it is. I'd like to know why. It's possible I'm too stupid to see why, and I'd like to know why he says it is. But he just circled the title and wrote trash. So as far as I can tell he's an idiot.
>>7508242
Don't post Katie
Or you face the inevitablefeels
>>7506114
>books
pick one
I liked "The Sense of Style".
That's all I have to say.
>>7506039
I came here to post this
>>7509900
I've never heard of it and was tired of those two bickering without making points, so here are some links
>An excerpt in the Guardian, which is funny and good
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/15/steven-pinker-10-grammar-rules-break
>the New Yorker talks shit on it
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/steven-pinkers-bad-grammar
But that's enough links for now. He argues he's doing something else than kicking prescriptivist teeth out, but that's basically what it feels like, which is fine with me.
If there's reason for this books success, it's because he has come down and said, "don't all you people act like fucking assholes when you write, and don't worry what the white man says. Just enjoy yourself and put words in a row until your meaning is clear."
he's a hack fraud on par with niall Ferguson for embarrassments to the once great institution that was Harvard.
>>7510728
harvard was never good
Totalitarianism in a Tundra/10
>>7507787
OK, fair enough. I couldn't even make it all the way through that
But I'll say this -- there are problems with linguistic relativity as Whorf formulates it (at least from what I have read). However, more recent scholars, (so-called Neo-Whorfians) have done some interesting work. The best example I can think of is John Lucy, who did a very interesting case study of the count/noncount distinction in I think Yucatec Mayan that I think provides solid evidence for linguistic relativity.
Prescriptivism > Descriptivism
>>7512862
Linguistic relativity isn't all or nothing, and my sense is that most linguists are on board with it to some degree; your language is a contributing factor to how you think, but is only one of many contributing factors.
>>7506278
He defended Larry Summers in 2005 when he got grilled for saying men and women have innate sex differences including mental ability. He also debated the issue here (and destroyed his opponent)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bTKRkmwtGY
He's talked in depth about heightened Jewish intelligence which is anti-PC because it infers that some groups are not as smart as others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GexZF5VIMU
And here (21:10) he commits thought crime on violence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UJq63E1MgQ
>“...if there were changes in the genetic basis for violence it would lead to the politically uncomfortable possibility that people—one race or ethnic group that’s been in a situation in which violence has been controlled for a longer period of time—might be genetically less prone to violence than some other one; A hypothesis that simply can’t be investigated in this political climate."
Here are his thoughts on stereotype accuracy from The Blank Slate:
>“The idea that stereotypes are inherently irrational owes more to a condescension toward ordinary people than it does to good psychological research. Many researchers, having shown that stereotypes existed in the minds of their subjects, assumed that the stereotypes had to be irrational, because they were uncomfortable with the possibly that some trait might be statistically true of some group. They never actually checked. That began to change in the 1980’s and now a fair amount is known about the accuracy of stereotypes.“
>“With some important exceptions, stereotypes are in fact not inaccurate when assessed against objective benchmarks such as census figures or the reports of the stereotyped people themselves. People who believe that African Americans are more likely to be on welfare than whites, that Jews have higher average income than WASPs, that business students are more conservative than students in the arts, that women are more likely than men to want to lose weight, and that men are more likely than women to swat a fly with their bare hands, are not being irrational or bigoted. Those beliefs are correct. People’s stereotypes are generally consistent with the statistics, and in many cases their bias is to underestimate the real differences between sexes or ethnic groups. This does not mean that the stereotyped traits are unchangeable, of course, or that people think they are unchangeable, only that people perceive the traits fairly accurately at the time.“
He's a pretty big enemy to progressive leftists but he covers his ass by being very careful with his words. That plus he has tenure. I've read an interview where he said he wouldn't publish half of the stuff he has if he didn't have tenure.
>>7505533
Too conservative to be of any value to intellectual life.
>>7513727
>I've read an interview where he said he wouldn't publish half of the stuff he has if he didn't have tenure.
welp that's explicitly why tenure was invented
>>7508248
Does she have a youtube channel anymore?
>>7513742
She's on Livejasmine
>>7505533
Weird, I actually ordered this book less than 2 hours ago.
>>7513745
pls
>>7513793
how did you save so many shekels?
>tfw you just want to love again
pls post a mirror of the original video.
>>7513793
Is the rise and fall of the British empire good?
>>7514332
No one watches her channel. Her mom pops on once and a while, but that's it. You know her dad is dead, right? Hence the astrology woo woo bullshit. Plus she has 30s in the microwave-face-syndrome. Poor lassie. I wonder where she astral projects to? Probably a place with big strong muscular horses, horses that can only love, but unlike dogs they can take her places, protect her—such powerful muscles!
Her therapist knows she hasn't progressed past the horse stage, replacing horse with man. She, the therapist, won't say this aloud to Katie's dumb hick mawmaw, though. The therapist gently encourages Katie's equestrian and astrological interests while cutting each session short by 20 minutes.
>>7514355
Book Outlet normally has 60-80% off list price, then of that discounted price I took another 50% off of that for boxing day.
>>7512862
Lucy's book is rad. It's all built on Silverstein's hierarchy of features and ergavity, which is based af
>>7507966
>>7508024
Evopsy doesn't endorse conservatism or reactionary ideologies. It's just that conservatives and reactionaries conflate evopsy with some practical sociopolitical agenda. This isn't the goal.
Like, from a Darwinian perspective you can understand how rape can be adaptive and thus is something that reoccurs generation after generation. This isn't saying that rape is good. Nature is amoral. You can't derive conclusions on how society ought to work based on stuff works.
Same with psychometrics.
The people that are really crazy about this stuff don't even have that much of a grasp on current literature anyway. They just google for whatever seems to justify their notions, some papers come up, they ignore the rest, make up something to fill the gaps, and voila.
>>7507966
I admire you for admitting this, but I think you are still off base here.
I don't think evpsy does any of those things that you've mentioned, but one can hardly take umbridge at people who study the human condition by beginning with looking at actually existing states of human affairs e.g. a racist, sexist and hierarchical societal organisation. It's both possible to be lead by evidence to believe that the state of society now or historically is influenced by genetic predispositions, and also that this is where it makes the most sense to begin at least, in investigating evolutionary hypotheses. It'd hardly make sense to begin with the premise that all human's are naturally altruisitic, something that has never been evident in their behaviour - to do so, that'd be a genuine example of ideological science.
Likewise I know of no legitimate evopsy person who conflates the natural order of things with morality - I don't actually think many of them care about morality at all. although it's a more complex question than just suggesting morality and evolutionary norms are entirely divorced. After all, if we grant thinking human's have any genetic predispositions as an acceptable belief, it seems more reasonable to say that we accept some forms of evolutionary derived morality rather than forms that now seem to us more base, selfish etc.
>>7514400
enjoyable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL7vK0pOvKI
>>7507966
At least you admit you judge the validity of hypotheses based on whether they align or not with your ideology.
>>7517977
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU
