Gravitahn
Click here for new version with FIXED AUDIO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw
==================================
This is an excerpt of an April 22, 2005 debate between Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke on the subject of under-representation of women in science. This was at least partially inspired by an incident involving former Harvard president Lawrence Summers, whose public comments speculating on possible explanations for gender disparity in science were widely misinterpreted and taken out of context.
This video includes only Steven Pinker’s prepared portion. It does not include Elizabeth Spelke’s presentation, the dialogue between the two speakers or the Q&A section. You can view the entire 2-hour event here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8
===========================
Steven Pinker is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. He conducts research on language and cognition and has authored ten books, including:
The Language Instinct
How the Mind Works
The Blank Slate
The Stuff of Thought
The Better Angels of Our Nature
and most recently, The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century.
http://stevenpinker.com
Source
It's also interesting that women blame the disparity on men, while at the same time preferring men of higher wealth and status. WTF, women?
I'd just add I think it brave one who seems as informed as Steven Pinker is daring to make this side of the case, full knowing that he is probably gonna get chewed out on this by people less interested in exploring any differences, and more in a "forced" egalitarianism
Truth = feminist can fuck go themselves
There's such cognitive dissonance on the academic left about this. For example: left-wing educators – people who think they are the most PC, progressive people on earth – often excuse misbehaviour by black students because black males have a 'more aggressive, physical way of expressing themselves'. They spend the rest of the time calling out others for 'describing ethnic minorites in terms of sweeping, reductive stereotypes'. The fact that they are themselves willing to write off the males of an entire race as innately aggressive doesn't trouble them at all.
If we are genuinely liberal I would argue that also necessitates a commitment to reason and honesty, and we gain nothing from sticking our heads in the sand and lying our way to utopia.
I think people have trouble with abstracts because it's more difficult to understand the rules of the question.
Facts and reality are sexist and racist. Everybody knows that. lol
Does the botched circumcision not disgust anyone else? Stop the unnecessary genital mutilation! There's no god in the sky who hates your sex organ cosmetics!
In response to numerous requests, I've uploaded a new version of this video with better audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw
ass
"I am a feminist", closed, dislike and goodbye…why? I am an evolved individual human being. Feminism is an evolved collectivist and damaging ideology.
+nt78stonewobbleI mostly agree, but while every person has different circumstances, the elimination of structural barriers places the onus at the feet of the individual to determine the course of his/her own life. That's true for everyone, not just "underrepresented" classesz There are far more poor white people than any other group, and 40% of whites are now born out of wedlock, so a good portion of society is now starting from a difficult place. That's been true of every society ever, but at least ours allows for individual determination and income mobility, more than any society ever. It require advances citizenship and that's the biggest challenge for historically opseressed groups ( when there was actual institutional discrimination). It's cultural, many folks are not prepared for the grind or how to navigate the system, even though the system has been largely corrected. As to safety nets, I agree, but they already exist. The challenge is when they are relied upon as permanent and not transitional. As to accumulation of wealth for its own sake being suboptimal, I think it's important to understand that people are generating wealth, not hording or stealing. Wealth is not a zero sum game, it it created through industry and innovation. I don't care what their motivation is, but the system has to allow for their motivations to be realized, otherwise the innovation doesn't happen. That the rub. The accumulation of wealth is just an outcome of creation, which drives the entire economy. The accumulation of wealth by these folks, in and of Itself, is irrelevant; the process by which it is allowed to happen is wildly positive and creates the jobs that most of us have, takes people off of public assistance, increases the income taxes base ( personal and corporate), etc. it drives the economy. Begrudging the wealth of the people who created commerce is counter productive, and leads to policies that inadvertently quash the economy. Libs believe they can just skim some off the top of the rich fold and no one will notice and problems are solved. False. You could take ALL of the onset of the top 1% and it wouldn't come close, multiple studies have proven this. More problematic,though, is that these people aren't stupid and will simply adjust their behavior and stop investing in development and growth if it's no longer worthwhile. Individuals take their money and leave for greener pastures, as we've seen in Greece, France, Sweden, UK, etc. Their brain drain has been dramatic.
So basically, women should be in government and men should fuck around with light and explosives.
Women are better at Angry Birds.
I love this, however, "people are good intuitive statisticians"? Bullshit, Pinker didn't read Kahneman and Tversky
I find the existence of sexally reproducing species to be supremely and inherently sexist, and therefore wrong. It is clear that only two options lie ahead: we can either do the humane thing and euthanize all sexually reproducing organisms, or we can try to biologically engineer our reproductive mechanism so that it may be asexual.
Attention Liberals – Think about (true story) about Black Rule in South Africa true story in a book a must read!: Look into the FUTURE!: book Title: Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa by Ilana Mercer. Read and share with friends!
I love how Steven Pinker is so calm and collected, and especially concise on what he talks about.
There aren't enough women in plumbing, plus we need more women in construction to help level out the playing field. Diversity is our strength people!!
and truth is objective or interpreted? Shocking a person with such fancy letters after their name would use the word truth so awkwardly
He constantly apologise to feminists ('feminist high council') for stating the facts
excelent talk. Pinker hits the nail on the head!
Feminine males (who could or not be homosexual) have very often similar interests than females despite having been raised by parents to be "regular" males and despite the society expecting them to have conform male behaviour and tastes.
This is true also of masculine females who have masculine like tastes and behaviour.
If the society pressure and the parents education were responsible for the males choosing science and engineering more than females then it should be true also for feminine males and masculine females who are raised to be "straight" and face enormous pressure from society to conform to their expected genders norm.
It is obvious that interests and tastes differences between males and females have solid foundation in biology whatever the social input is.
Most thinking men and scientists need to man up and say no to hoes.
Sapien is enough, humankind doesn't need anymore designations. Mankind, humankind how about womenkind. In fact men are a subspecies of women because men don't birth anything. Men get pregnant with a beer gut, while eating doritos and watching basketball movies. They give birth when they see another man dunk a basketball or catch a football, then men slap each others assess and kiss and hug, and jump for joy.
The truth will actually be sexist, because there is no equality in biology. Saying the truth cannot be sexist is dumb by definition.
Here are some facts
1. Scientists are human like the rest of us, they have their own agendas and biases politically
2. Facts are not sexist, the truth is not sexist
3. The word 'fact' is thrown around by Pinker falsely about very very complex areas of human behavior, choice, personality, apititudes and in all areas of human consciousness and subjective experience which is the result of INCREDIBLY COMPLEX neurological processes influences both by nature AND nurture.
4. Nature and nurture and epigenetics proves that gendered behavior is influenced and variable over time and influenced by history – culture, social norms existing in various places in space and time
5. Darwinian theory is THEORY . Meaning that within are facts of merit but also resulting speculation, influenced by the belief systems and biases of Darwin and the culture around him
6. The Bell curve is notoriously disputed as reductionalistic and inaccurate by many OTHER scientists. As are the westernized standardized tests used to justify eugenics and scientific racism. IE 'intelligence ' is a variable concept depending on the culture and time it is relevant to.
7. Steven pinker is entitled to his opinions, but they arw not shared by other people with equal tenure and experience
8. Even if these differences definitely exist, they arw so tiny that one must wonder the motivation for such a fixation on them given the divisive. nature of audience response. What is the point? If there was a HuGE difference perhaps it would be of value, but I see know motivation for this propaganda (not so much by PInker but by those political agitators to base their bigotry) other than a quest to prove superiority in the cess pit of right wing patriarchal, religiously based dogma where we are supposedly much better off keeping women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
It kindve bothers me the lengths people will go to prove some tiny percentage of difference between men and wome in aptitude and intelligence in various areas . What motivates you? You must be pretty desperate to prove some sort of superiority? Are you feeling insecure? emasculated some how? And while you reel off crime stats and dangerous jobs did it not occur to you that it is patriarchal systems which encourage men to take risks and reinforce the gender stereotypes which also harm men. You are essentially drawing attention to a legitimate issue of violence and incarceration, war amongst mainly men and blaming women for it. Or feminism – the two terms now apparently interchangeable. What is your solution ? Shall we go back to the 19th century or take on Laws like those in Saudi Arabia and countries where women dont have a say in careers, education, whom they marry, forced to marry and make sure they stay in the kitchen cos thats where they belong for the good of humanity? Cos aside from slinging mud at a human rights movement – one campaigning for your mothers and sisters to have autonomy , choice and agency like you have? Furthermore – did it occur to you that most so called feminists are not so stupid they dont understand nature involves itself in human behavior itself, but also that nurture plays a huge role? There ARE grey areas you know….
And to make things even more fun- no credible scientist can empiraclly make a claim that person x makes a choice based solely on their genitals and physical sex. The brain is a complex and ever evolving organ – one which we only understand 10% of. So most of this speculation about choice and aptitude is based on THEORY . Pinker is being FAIR by keeping his mind open, but those who use his research to make incredibly sensationalized so called factual claims are politically motivates. We can look at statistics and draw conclusions – my point is that these conclusions are subjective and not empirical.
Remember – only in the last 50 years have women had the resources, approval, the RIGHT to even study beyond highschool and pursue careers etc. Prior to the pill and the feminist movement we were essentially chained to our menstrual cycles, pregnancy and in many tribes where physical strength and hunting were necessarily male tasks, and women needed to be protected and nurture the children. This idea is OUTDATED and unnecessary in the times we live in, not to mention illogical …given the economic times whereby a dual income is usually necessary for most middle-class families to live comfortably …and to raise the global GDP of western countries and third world countries alike.
Hitchens, a chauvenist was actually the one to say that if women in the third world had control of their reproductive systems, were allowed education and to contribute to the workforxe the entire country would be uplifted fiscally and socially.
It is in the interests of all of society for half the worlds population to have equal human rights, choice and an education. The population will lower, mothers will be happier, children will be healthier and there will be less war, death and violence.
Men and women are equal, the tiny differences between them intelligence wise is not relevant to the argument that we retain rigid gender roles. It is in fact counter productive.
I also noticed you use that ONE STUDY repeated oft by right wing scientists by simon Baden Cohen…a celebrity professor who likes to make sensational claims making him a talking head in the media. More citations needed. Baren Cohen is an ass hat bigot…who did a horrific study on autisitic children comparing personality disorders like BPd with psychopathy and a lack of empathy.
He has clearly not read the psychiatric DSm. BPD and autism do not have ANY traits claiming that they lack empathy. To compare autistic people and the mentally Ill with psychopaths is very unethical. My friend a professor of psychiatry is horrified that another professor can make such a terrible error and sell a book about it. The amount of bullshit and propaganda on the internet is terrifying. We need to fact check. it is terrible.
I thought this was a 'debate'. Where is the other counterpart?
Steven Pinker never fails to impress me!
The problem isn't science, the problem is how misogynistic 14 year old idiots in the comment sections are using "science"…
Steven Pinker helped get me into free thinking and now he is dismantling hysterical PC culture. Thank You Sir
Gender is a spectrum, yall.
Uncontroversial presentation in 2005. Outrage and protest in 2015. lol
Men are way better at peeing their name in the snow.
If i want to go into childcare will i get special consideration because males are undererepresented.i think not
i just wonder if pinkster is still a feminist ?
nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
Are you a man woman or a thing?
Sound is very low
As with all comparative studies like this, the biggest danger is that audiences immediately forget we are talking about population averages, not individuals. People take such studies and begin to discriminate against the individual and justify it by citing averages. I encourage Pinker and others performing these studies to reiterate many times over the inappropriateness of applying averages to the individual, because audiences tend to conveniently forget.
Does Steven Pinker agree with the use of people's gender pronouns?