The war on rationality | Steven Pinker

40 thoughts on “The war on rationality | Steven Pinker”

1. More videos with Steven Pinker: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uULy4b0kV7nvV12Nv8FUVOQUk7TdqXp

2. I was surprised to discover this wasn't intentionally autobiographical. Pinker is one of the great sophists of our time, a force for complacency, illusion, and harm..

3. Rationality is great and we should all work on being rational human beings, however it also has its limitations, and there are things that you can't explain with rationality…

4. Waiting for Trump to release and declassify the files that prove his triumph. Never be too certain about anything!

5. These are the natural consequences of an economic system that is based on competition rather than collaboration and cooperation which would be beneficial for civilization and humanity. Capitalism is characteristically unstable, inefficient, ineffective, destructive, antisocial, unjust and ultimately unsustainable. Religious mysticism and nationalism/tribalism are also destructive forces. It’s up to the working class to unite in OuR collective interests to end these dysfunctional structures and systems by fundamentally changing the ownership model. Ownership of the productive enterprises should be placed directly into the hands of the workers. One worker, one share of ownership and one vote to elect a representative board of directors that will establish policies and compensation focused on working families interests. Locally elected representatives could also be given a number of shares so that communities also have a voice in decision making. Democracy in the workplace. Capitalism, religious mysticism and tribalism are crimes against humanity. If they persist and survive, humanity won’t.

6. The question I have with Pinker is, what criteria are you using to measure Progress, and what metrics you are using to value “good” life? There are some metrics that are harder to evaluate, like mental health, beauty, meaning, happiness and social bonds etc. If you are using empiricism as the arbiter (reason and science), you risk shutting out these aspect in favor of the more clearly visible ones, like life expectancy, GDP, material wealth. If that’s the case, you create a society that has most metric looking very good on the spreadsheet, yet everyone is unhappy and resentful. Pinker imo did not recognize the underlying assumption he inherited from the Enlightenment, that being rational thought is always better than religious and traditional morality, as well as a particular kind of episteme (scientific knowledge) being hegemonic in the discourse of knowledge. For my last point, that means who is the judge towards knowledge, Pinker mentioned knowledge needs to be falsifiable and testable, which in itself is an assumption towards the world that might not be true. How should we treat other forms of knowledge? (Intuition, revelation, experience etc.) Are they always inferior to scientific, rational knowledge? If not outright abandoned as heresy, bigotry or superstition?

7. The ones who need all these tools taught in school the most will vote against raising taxes for better education and better paid teachers while not being able to grasp the benefits such tools would yield for them were they to learn them.

8. Rationality seems to be going through a severe midlife crisis, nothing seems to cure the actual culture of stupidity, particularly in universities. And although data is the basis, interpretation is always necessary to take decisions and there is when irrationality takes control

9. That is exactly how the world is to me. Thank you

10. Rationality alone is not – at all – what leads to benevolent progress. Rationality serves whatever core beliefs you have.

    I believe that one of the core problems with Academia in the West is that it is not just that it seeks to eliminate religion – but it transparently seeks to replace religion with itself.

11. Why is he using a white backdrop if they are showing the rest of the room?

12. Rationality…oh my, class-stratified rationality, Western-advanced-centric rationality up there in the heights of super smart well-educated wealthy neighborhoods nicely broadcasting scientific-based rational domination…to whom this guy imagines he's talking? His and her pairs? One week living in a slum of a Brazilian huge metropolitan area, as it is, and all this rationality gibberish will swirl down the real-South drain

13. Nice

14. Problem is, everyone THINKS they're rational…

15. No matter how far you go back in time, living things can ONLY come from a living thing (the law of  biogenesis). And mankind is limited in procreation by the fact that there must be a male and a female at some point with regards to a beginning point that could result in more and more people. Therefore, if there were a beginning of mankind, there must have been at least two: one male and one female (as the foundational, lowest possible denominator for propagation). Now, as to environment, without the sun or moon, man would be in trouble. Assuming a beginning with regards to our solar system, if the genesis were a big bang somewhere, the planets formed out of the bang would (1) be spherical in form (2) the sun would be the focal point for the other planets to possibly congregate around (3) the velocity of each planet from the big bang had to allow (a) for just enough deceleration to not escape the gravitational pull of the sun and (b) not enough deceleration to cause the planet to never arrive at our solar system. (4) the planets ejected by the tremendous force of an incredibly large "bang", must approximate spherical shapes as they are currently seen; because, there is not enough of friction in space to terraform fragments into spheres over any length of time. (5) in order for earth to sustain life as we now perceive it, there must be an exact balance between oxygen and nitrogen and (6) for there to be plants to grow on earth they must be compatible with human life's respiratory factors. In other words, plants and mankind must share symbiotic relationships between themselves and with all other life forms to exist. (7) the very basic necessities of the human cell that are required to subsist are complex: requiring an internal, chemical motor, flagellum, cell membranes, RNA & DNA and other components in order to subsist. For individuals to subsist, they cannot be too close to the sun nor too far away. There must be the correct amount of gases in the proper proportion for respiration to occur. Man can not hold his breath while these things somehow combine to cause respiration. The more different organisms involved in our present, necessitates even more basic requirements for sustainability. It can be assumed that horses produce horses, dogs produce dogs, apple trees produce apple trees, etc. Now, each species have their own set of requirements for continued sustainability. The more species found on earth, the more unlikely that the causal factors for existence were a function of random chance. If man's DNA or RNA are damaged even in a minute amount, the result is quite catastrophic. So, it can be assumed that the requirements within DNA must have been insitu at the start, as a working heart is required, working lungs are required, blood pressure must be within proper parameters, it would be good to have a brain that was working initially, as well, because the brain and heart cannot join the party at a latter time, while all else waits around. In other words, a brain can not pop up out of primordial soup and await lungs and blood to join the party through a process of evolution. The blood pressure must be within a certain range. Not high enough, and there is inadequate circulation. So, with each requirement for sustainability within EVERY SPECIES on the planet, we have the mandated IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY required for the continuation of life as we NOW CAN OBSERVE IT. So yeah, there's that.

16. Who is that old woman?

17. There are 3 laws which determine the long-term survival of EVERY species and civilization in the universe. 1) "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." "Love thy neighbor as thyself." — with "others" and "neighbors" PROPERLY defined AS INTENDED BY THE SPEAKER to include ALL living creatures, human and non-human EVERYWHERE in the universe 2) propagate your species AND your ecologically-based life support system throughout the universe wherever alien species have not already done so 3) defend your species AND its ecologically based life support system against all threats and hazards, both internal and external, that would seek to cause it harm. THAT'S IT! Do that and your species and civilization will continue to evolve into a moral creature and society forever. Fail to do it, and your species and your civilization, by its own decisions and actions, will go EXTINCT and another will rise to take its place and will likewise be tested. The law is the law. No exceptions. No gods need be evoked to punish or save. The purpose of the universe is to serve as a high pass filter to select for the moral creature and to eliminate the immoral creature. Most species and civilizations are immoral and go extinct. That explains the Fermi paradox. Let the games begin! 😮

18. Religion is the faith of irrationality.

19. Rationality, by itself, doesn’t produce kindness, justice, and civilized behavior. Game strategies show that predation and exploitation of trust is almost as effective as cooperation and kindness. It’s a fine balance, despite the advantage that cooperation provides. The things that tip the scale toward kindness, justice, and trust are our the emotional parts of the human brain, and oxytocin.

20. Hoo boy, how do things look now, in early 2025? Rationality IS under deliberate attack these days.

21. Hotbeds of irrationality? A universe of irrationality, that's what it is! Add social media to the above. Apps like TikTok allow millions of irrational people to show themselves doing and saying a real load of nonsense!

22. 3:33 …. lol

23. Dude is pro vaccine but claims to be pro rationality 😂

24. We've lost the war a very long time ago.

25. Wherever you go their you are. Los Angeles 2014

26. You lost all credibility. The election was stolen and you would know that being a rational person.

27. 9% of the World? Blatant lie.

28. It’s crazy to think he’s not against killing baby’s even after birth.

29. The elections in 2020 were stolen after clear cut evidence proving that to be true. Big Think starting to act like Little Think

30. This is the 3rd time I watch it and it is still great 😃

31. So let's be rational. According to sciense the universe is infinite. So rationally thinking, an event lasting forever in infinite space holds an infinite amount of information. Then, the human brain has only about over 80 billion neurons that can make a limited amount of connections within the time of human life. And the part in the brain generating this "rational thinking" is limited. Even if one dedicates one's life to somthing simple, lets say making pottery, you will always miss the 99,9999999… % of the information that exists on pottery making, especially considering all the thousands or millions of years of pottery making yet to come in the future. So in a nutshell: human rationality is not flawless. Regardless of rationality being so important, there is much more than rationality that is at least equally important. Or maby I'm not "rational enough", like he propaply (think he) is to get his philosofy. He has some important points though, so appreciate that.

32. The camp I'm in shares this ideology: I want you (anyone) to pursue your happiness. I want you to think, speak and act exactly as you choose. There are only two limitations I place on you: 1. You can't hurt anyone (law). 2. If I so choose…you will leave me OUT of what you want. Now all anybody else has to do is extend the exact same agreement to me and we can live in Utopia. But the other camp does NOT believe that I should think, speak and act as I please. Therefore, we have the current culture war and it will not end until strangers leave me alone and stop telling me what to think, say and do. Freedom vs Tyranny. How simple can it get?

33. Is he so rational that pink is the only colour he isn't wearing, so Pinker isn't any pinker than is necessary?

34. Must distinguish between rational and reasonable.

35. I'm critical nd rational

36. Pinker is fine one to talk about rationality, loves the system because of his privileged position in it,

37. I think this is very simplistic, reductive, and perhaps just not correct. Would love to see an actual debate – so much to be said to the contrary

38. Unfortunately he sacrifices rationality on the altar of political allegiance. His previously impeccable credentials are now very much compromised.

39. Fascists attack facts and logic because they'd prefer that no one questions their actions ever

40. Thanks for this great summary! It really helped me understand Pinker’s ideas more clearly. I liked how it showed that progress isn’t something automatic, but something we achieve through rational thinking. The comparison between data and headlines was very eye opening, and I agree that we often miss the bigger picture because of negative news. Also, the part about education and how critical thinking should be part of everyday life was super important. Really thoughtful and inspiring!

Comments are closed.