Steven Pinker: The Elephant, the Emperor, and the Matzo Ball

33 thoughts on “Steven Pinker: The Elephant, the Emperor, and the Matzo Ball”

1. But why does my brain think it's important for me to remember faux pas I made twenty years ago? And reminding me of them all the time.

2. Sometimes, I feel smart. And then I listen to Pinker. Then me not so smart. Brilliant man.

3. Well it seems the knowledge of common knowledge is not common knowledge…

4. I don't think the conditions at 9:05 is sufficient. What, for example, happens when one of the spectators, say Albert, thinks he is invisible? Then still everyone sees the emperor and everyone sees that everyone else sees the emperor, but Albert has faulty common knowledge since he thinks no-one know he sees the emperor naked.

5. Does he know that we know that he smacks his lips after every sentence?

6. His sister's book The Village Effect is good.

7. ass

8. He forgot to mention that if you did a veil bribe on a cop that you also need to take into consideration the inconvenience of maybe having to go to court, even if a bribe could not be proven. You would be down at least a days pay. Also the cop could also pay a bit more attention to looking for defects on your vehicle if you tried a veil bribe on them instead of just accepting the ticket. So in theory the veil bribe could seem the logical option, in practice could sway the probability in accepting the ticket is the better option.

9. Interesting. I like it.

10. I can't understand the logic puzzles when you constantly misspeak and swap out words randomly dude…

11. Reminds me of the scene from "The Princess Bride" when Westley challenges Vizzini to a mental challenge to determine which cup has the poison. So funny!

12. I like this concept a lot and enjoyed the video, but I think they over-simplify the "punishment" with the innuendo option on the game theory table. In each case, he shows that with the innuendo option you will get either the best reward or the least punishment, but I think people often reply to a veiled request, with a veiled punishment, if they feel insulted. For example, the maitre d' may intentionally have you wait longer if he is insulted, but doesn't want to make his feelings overt, or the girl who turns down the veiled request for sex may just distance herself from the requester. Saying the repercussions of a veiled request end with the conversation, seems like an arbitrary cut-off to me.

13. Did Steven Pinker just show that you should always try a veiled bribe every time you're pulled over?

14. 好棒~~

15. What is this about actually? Intro lacks any cue. Just starts talking about common knowledge.

16. What a beautifully intelligent man.

17. Millenial version of see my etchings: netflix and chill

18. When Harry Met Sally, interesting that Hollywood at some point had an intuitive understanding of gender relations, and then all the people involved became indoctrinated into denying what they once knew.

19. Great talk. It seems to me that indirect speech is like a preemptive defence mechanism.

20. Presented results lack statistical rigor: how many subjects were in each experiment, what were the confidence intervals for the observed differences or what were the p-values and statistical powers? Were these results reproduced by other research groups? Great wording but flimsy data. Presentation not worthy professional audience. P.S. Directional graphs could have been used to simplify " … she knows that he knows that …" structures.

21. Interestingly, the bribing part missing the case "Bribe + Corrupted Officer/Maitre d'" -> "Recieve a ticket/Long Wait". Since bribing is not something that guarantees the desired outcome even if accepted. That makes the choice of making a bribe "heavier" (referring to the Loss aversion).

22. you are a boring dude with a very high iq

23. I just heard him mention in an interview that his next book (after Enlightenment Now) will be on this subject, although it won't be released for a few years

24. Awesome lecture. I wonder if another study could be done that ties in egotism and maybe sarcasm? I feel like they're also related.

25. July 16th

26. The Pinker the better.

27. I want Dr Pinkers commentary on the internet story of the infamous "Hugh Mungus" or "HOW DARE you!" controversy in Seattle.

28. I want to hear a discussion with PInker, Peterson, Haight, and Harris on religion and it's cultural impact on the West and the world.

29. there is also a another variable that he doesn't mention referred to the veiled bribe to the maitre d. Maitre d could sniff out the bribe, not accept it and on top of it punish you with a longer wait than the one you were going to have. this been for the reason that he doesn't like bribes veiled or not

30. Twenty-five seconds in and — uh-oh! I got a signal. Why "…seen with their own eyeballs"? Why not "eyes"? Language puffery always makes me put a hand on my wallet pocket. "Way, shape or form" instead of "way". "Cash flow" instead of "cash". I've been enjoying S.P. lately (despite his odd use, in at least one talk, of "she" for a neuter third-person when "they" is clear, unambiguous, not loaded and has historical precedent). Verbal irregularities such as this make me wonder what that scratchy stuff coming down my forehead is. Well, no matter — the world has lots of oddities, and some of the most observant and articulate people display them. S.P.'s content is always engaging.

    And now, I hope to watch the rest of the show uninterrupted.

    …
    Nice, as expected. The talk reminds me a little of grammar — everyone uses it automatically, but he gives names of the parts of speech. It's fun, like the analysis of music — but that's no way to learn how to play the piano.

31. At 7:40 the answer is to get on the ‚telepathic phone‘ to fix the meet 🤙🏿 .. at Peet‘s.. anyplace but Starbucks ☕️🔫

32. I am watching this video in early November 2019 as the US Congress is carrying out impeachment hearings of Donald Trump. Trump, his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and his European Union ambassador, Gordon Sondland, are on record as having used indirect speech and innuendo in pressuring Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate and thus smear the Biden family in advance of the 2020 election. As quoted in the Washington Post, security council official Alexander Vindman, when asked if the investigation of Bidens was “a deliverable,” in other words, as part of quid pro quote, he answered “there was no doubt.“ Those of you reading this in the future will know whether or not the Democratic congress had been successful in convincing the American population, and thus their Republican senators, that Trump had indeed engaged in an illegal quid pro quo to benefit him personally and politically — this despite the fact that Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney had already stated directly that that indeed had taken place, making it, as a result, common knowledge.

33. Very thought provoking.This makes me question about what could be assumed common knowledge.
    Where one person thinks that he knows that she knows that he knows that she knows… and the other person knows that she knows that he knows… but in fact the common knowledge varies between the parties.
    I understand in order to achieve a common knowledge that a salient event occurs, however that event would need to be perceived in the same way. If it is not- could that then give rise to assumed common knowledge and what sets of circumstances could that then lead to such as a self conscious emotions, and what set of strategies would then ensue to manage the coordination of the relationship. Would that then lead to demonstrating a set of cultural bias overall in that which is common knowledge and what would that bias be if so?

Comments are closed.