the boudries of humans being, normal life, your thoughts and being unique and at somepoint you may think, should i go isolate and be alone. enjoying talking of, basic terms like science. some common knlowledge of a normal educated person, not knowing basic ideas like dna only being part of the a "general" term of general "Recently!!" "Obsevered" events. the nothing being able to process things like which came first in cronological order of hormones and neroepeniferion, hypohylseim, but possible pluassable talk of still being able to alter dna and become "super man" or "cancer Proof" if we want to even if we dont have a way to, scientificly get proved wrong, to gaurrentte "something" "a product" to the public. that is 100 percent a product of " a + b = ... ". this is the time line i think science "could " and "does" and "might" lead humans. 1. animails talking/ curing cancers... 2. heads in jars like "tv show future drama", that can talk and live for ever.. 3. floating cars. my question is, if moms are to busy for their kids, and dont want to be bothered by them playing or fighting like i see, alot of dog moms act, and we learn to lie some where?, where do we really learn behavoir? the answer probabbly goes something like. we all try to be good people and show empathy. we wish we all had a job and a apartment to think, "im okay" but my point is be at that level for you to be where you want in life to make the desicsion for what you want in life and "be okay" to make the better descion for yourself. to be "okay", but can do 1 step and get 1 good thing for it.

@@halfsnaps environment and genetic predisposition did you not listen to a word he said?

@@ScattMatt3000 twitch /halfsnaps . I stream me make counter strike maps from 1997. And I study.

I just discovered your comment by accident, since I don't really watch the lectures, I listen to them while doing photoshop . LOL ! I feel blessed too.

I listen while cleaning houses. Fascinating lectures, so fluent and coherent, I thank R Sapolsky and Stanford for enriching my mind!

I agree, and I think he's achieved one of his major aims in this course if we don't take anyone's statements as the final word on a subject...even his own. What a wonderful teacher!!!

​@@gmaharriet true both of you are true and not but you got that by now...didn't you. hèhèh there is more to love i think about humanity than there is to not love i love humanity see how i made that choice...

You should doubt his own conclusions because many studies that he quotes in his lectures didn't replicate and he is leaving out others - that did not match his world view - that did. Never trust that just one person holds all the truth. Everybody has their shortcomings.

@@Dfd_Free_Speech Do you have sources to back your affirmation please? I'm very interested.

​@@isntitabeautifulday1648 For a start read this article: www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/psychologys-replication-crisis-real/576223/ If you got the time then check out the articles that all did not replicate. Sapolsky quoted many of them in his lectures. The particular finding is that studies that overweigh the role of environment in human behavior did replicate less than studies that overweigh the role of genetic inheritance. Also, epi-genetics is extremely rare and plays almost no significant role. There are also some recent studies on this. Sapolsky also massively overstates the role of epi-genetics. That's sad when genetic inheritance outweighs epi-genetics by something like a million to one.

the boudries of humans being, normal life, your thoughts and being unique and at somepoint you may think, should i go isolate and be alone. enjoying talking of, basic terms like science. some common knlowledge of a normal educated person, not knowing basic ideas like dna only being part of the a "general" term of general "Recently!!" "Obsevered" events. the nothing being able to process things like which came first in cronological order of hormones and neroepeniferion, hypohylseim, but possible pluassable talk of still being able to alter dna and become "super man" or "cancer Proof" if we want to even if we dont have a way to, scientificly get proved wrong, to gaurrentte "something" "a product" to the public. that is 100 percent a product of " a + b = ... ". this is the time line i think science "could " and "does" and "might" lead humans. 1. animails talking/ curing cancers... 2. heads in jars like "tv show future drama", that can talk and live for ever.. 3. floating cars. my question is, if moms are to busy for their kids, and dont want to be bothered by them playing or fighting like i see, alot of dog moms act, and we learn to lie some where?, where do we really learn behavoir? the answer probabbly goes something like. we all try to be good people and show empathy. we wish we all had a job and a apartment to think, "im okay" but my point is be at that level for you to be where you want in life to make the desicsion for what you want in life and "be okay" to make the better descion for yourself. to be "okay", but can do 1 step and get 1 good thing for it.

@@halfsnaps mall m Llzwwswz

@@halfsnaps what the hell did you say?

They'd mever release this nowadays tho. Its still only here because we would complain if it was taken down..

@@cheech460 he's been spamming the same bs everywhere

SpyMonkey3D well...he finished his story, and then he made a conclusion of sorts for the aggression lectures. I don't think we were cut off.

This guy has him beat as a Bob Ross wannabe --> kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q9eFbM-eq-DYf4k.html It's a neuroscience lecture at Stanford by Patrick House

He's so good at teaching biology, you forget that you're in a class. Just observing correlation, causation. correlation non causal characteristic . Taking you down a logical path, and it's a dead end. I'm glad to live in an age where I stimulate my mind with such a rich lecture while processing grape juice at Welch's.

.......and who's Bob Ross?

@Alejandro Adriel cant find it. link?

Correction, bob ross of neuroendocrinology

I❤️🐐

They do that to him all the time. I didn't think it had been an actual "editor--:". I thought the recorder was set automatically to shut-off at a pre-set time--; or whoever might be sitting next to it, might have had instructions from the Stanford Channel, to hit the off-switch as soon as the official time was reached--. I clearly agree, though--; that this creates such an unseemly effect for the viewer both as somebody who's trying to absorb the information in the video, and through the viewer's obvious empathy with Dr. Sapolski through how much hypnotic connectiveness he puts into his lectures--. Thank you for making this highly pertinent observation, which I'm sure most other viewers likely also shared--.

I was also incredibly disappointed when this cut lecture short

@@nickopeters Are there more such lecture series like this? If yes then please nudge me in that direction.

@@tippitytop Aww, I wish I knew, so I could tell you. Best of luck in finding out whatever way you may be able to.

the boudries of humans being, normal life, your thoughts and being unique and at somepoint you may think, should i go isolate and be alone. enjoying talking of, basic terms like science. some common knlowledge of a normal educated person, not knowing basic ideas like dna only being part of the a "general" term of general "Recently!!" "Obsevered" events. the nothing being able to process things like which came first in cronological order of hormones and neroepeniferion, hypohylseim, but possible pluassable talk of still being able to alter dna and become "super man" or "cancer Proof" if we want to even if we dont have a way to, scientificly get proved wrong, to gaurrentte "something" "a product" to the public. that is 100 percent a product of " a + b = ... ". this is the time line i think science "could " and "does" and "might" lead humans. 1. animails talking/ curing cancers... 2. heads in jars like "tv show future drama", that can talk and live for ever.. 3. floating cars. my question is, if moms are to busy for their kids, and dont want to be bothered by them playing or fighting like i see, alot of dog moms act, and we learn to lie some where?, where do we really learn behavoir? the answer probabbly goes something like. we all try to be good people and show empathy. we wish we all had a job and a apartment to think, "im okay" but my point is be at that level for you to be where you want in life to make the desicsion for what you want in life and "be okay" to make the better descion for yourself. to be "okay", but can do 1 step and get 1 good thing for it.

You have much progesterone

@@stewartwinterwizardgoat9375 What? Can you explain?

the boudries of humans being, normal life, your thoughts and being unique and at somepoint you may think, should i go isolate and be alone. enjoying talking of, basic terms like science. some common knlowledge of a normal educated person, not knowing basic ideas like dna only being part of the a "general" term of general "Recently!!" "Obsevered" events. the nothing being able to process things like which came first in cronological order of hormones and neroepeniferion, hypohylseim, but possible pluassable talk of still being able to alter dna and become "super man" or "cancer Proof" if we want to even if we dont have a way to, scientificly get proved wrong, to gaurrentte "something" "a product" to the public. that is 100 percent a product of " a + b = ... ". this is the time line i think science "could " and "does" and "might" lead humans. 1. animails talking/ curing cancers... 2. heads in jars like "tv show future drama", that can talk and live for ever.. 3. floating cars. my question is, if moms are to busy for their kids, and dont want to be bothered by them playing or fighting like i see, alot of dog moms act, and we learn to lie some where?, where do we really learn behavoir? the answer probabbly goes something like. we all try to be good people and show empathy. we wish we all had a job and a apartment to think, "im okay" but my point is be at that level for you to be where you want in life to make the desicsion for what you want in life and "be okay" to make the better descion for yourself. to be "okay", but can do 1 step and get 1 good thing for it.

Except for the contradictions, errors and occasional hypocrisy. The ideological bias can be pretty annoying too, though I expect that's part of Stanford's culture. But yeah - kind of what you'd expect a male liberal version of Ayn Rand to sound like.

DrCruel I just love the litres of venom oozing out of your every word, a good reminder that there still are Mr.s Know-It-All willing to share their invaluable insight into how wrong contemporary science is. Just go on and bust some magic tricks on KZfaq, apparently people like you thrive on stuff like that. Don't stumble on your ego though. It's quite enormous.

ShatteredEquilibrium I'm sorry you think that errors and contradictions have something to do with science, contemporary or otherwise. You seem to be confusing scientists with academicians. I certainly mean no ill will towards your choice of god-worship. Just telling it like it is. Although I should warn you - your petulant anger is similar to what one might expect from an Objectivist who hears the name "Nathaniel Branden" brought up in conversation.

+DrCruel It is possible that neither Stanford nor Sapolsky is ideologically biased to the extent that others with less training and greater bias, would have themselves believe. Stanford Med has been where I recommend many people with neurologiccal problems and injuries. It is rather unethical to claim bias merely because one has refused to have exposed oneself to a sufficiently rigourous education and criticism. Rand was a fiction writer, with some severe psychological problems, somewhat visible in extant interviews, and is not comparable to rigorously scientifically educated individuals, who have been career-long subject to intense criticism. The comment to which I respond is indicative of common failure of rigor or criticism, psychological biases and heuristics which are severely weeded out in social sciences. This failure is increasingly documented in populations and individuals now unrelievedly stressed by mixtures of overdensity, . Ours is a species that becomes rather violently heirarchical when exceeding the natural evolved social capacities of the organism. I hope Sapolsky will have elaborated more on the hyaenid social phenomena witnessed over in the Berkeley Hills. Humans are no less subject to analogous strictures on behavior in spite of relatively little research done from objective viewpoints on the primate species. Comparative social psychology has some validity; some specific primate research has exposed roots of the volatility exhibited in the comment. Sufficiently strong background in psychology, anthropology, and biopsychology will help one understand the problematic nature of the outgrouping intended by the commentor.

+DrCruel Branden was a therapeutic psychologist of the prescientific era of psychology, who was intimately involved with Ayn Rand, and spent his career under the sway of her personal social-status-tracking fiction and philosophy, if such a word can be accurately applied to her rather limited views of personality. She was of course biased to an extreme , very limbic and visible through the lens supplied by such as Jonathan Haidt for studying sociological bias. There appears to be a spectrum of asociality, or even antisociality shared by Rand and her apologists. It is pretty inappropriate to bring up the person in scientific discussion, unless as a clinical subject in abnormal psychology observation. There is no such thing as "objectivist" in scientific literature - this is a philosophical construct developed by some suffering at less empathic distances of the spectrum.

D Dee you make him sound like he is no longer with us. he is very much alive and well.

D Dee I had the pleasure to meet him 3 months ago. Very humble man. He might be in your town you would never know. Check out his book signing schedule.

@@Turquoise_kryptonite I don't see anything she said that indicates he's no longer alive ?

A certain Ghork 2019 still entertained ....

A legend unto himself. Just ask him, it's funny how a long winded 1960 looking .reject can impress someone. He actually suggests over throwing a country through computers. So when you support extremism to that degree then keep your legend

I❤️🐐

He does openly say he is an athiest 🤔😝

PAY TUITION

the boudries of humans being, normal life, your thoughts and being unique and at somepoint you may think, should i go isolate and be alone. enjoying talking of, basic terms like science. some common knlowledge of a normal educated person, not knowing basic ideas like dna only being part of the a "general" term of general "Recently!!" "Obsevered" events. the nothing being able to process things like which came first in cronological order of hormones and neroepeniferion, hypohylseim, but possible pluassable talk of still being able to alter dna and become "super man" or "cancer Proof" if we want to even if we dont have a way to, scientificly get proved wrong, to gaurrentte "something" "a product" to the public. that is 100 percent a product of " a + b = ... ". this is the time line i think science "could " and "does" and "might" lead humans. 1. animails talking/ curing cancers... 2. heads in jars like "tv show future drama", that can talk and live for ever.. 3. floating cars. my question is, if moms are to busy for their kids, and dont want to be bothered by them playing or fighting like i see, alot of dog moms act, and we learn to lie some where?, where do we really learn behavoir? the answer probabbly goes something like. we all try to be good people and show empathy. we wish we all had a job and a apartment to think, "im okay" but my point is be at that level for you to be where you want in life to make the desicsion for what you want in life and "be okay" to make the better descion for yourself. to be "okay", but can do 1 step and get 1 good thing for it.

I agree completely! I wish everyone in the world could watch the second half of this one.

i think that incident made him to go on studying about human behavior even till this day

Divida et impera ;)

There are three books he refers to throughout the series are: Chaos by James Gleick, Behave by Robert Sapolsky, and Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers by Robert Sapolsky. As for the articles he refers to... I haven't been able to find them myself.

I found a pdf googling Sapolsky Handouts.

@@peshawajalal2492 Thanks!

@@peshawajalal2492 awesomE! Thanks!!

Very complicated must repeat

The Shitty Activist I know I would like to listen to this to fall asleep but I’m so irritated with the coughing that I can’t. I wonder if she knows how annoying she is??

She probably eats her boogers

I've given some thought to why this coughing girl is a common comment on these videos. A large reason is coughing in a large and quiet audience is common: I don't think it's a single girl doing all of the coughing. Coughing is a contagious behavior (similar to yawning). She might be the first cougher, and then everyone else (100 people in that room) coughs, swallows or clears their throat with her. Another reason you're all brutally aware of the coughing people is the microphone. It's an omnidirectional microphone. This mic picks up the sound of the entire room. We're more used to professional level of sound in videos: now you hear why unidirectional mics are important for great sound quality in a lecture environment.

coronavirus

COVID Patient Zero!!!

+Jude Miller Children with strong familial ties, close interaction before age 6 (the response appears to extend as far as close to age 9 in some cases, suggesting, of course, that developmental stages are somewhat more distributed) is correlated with sexual nonattraction. It has been interpreted as a natural/genetic/epigenetic incest avoidance trait. It occurs in other animals sharing early development. The rule is not set in stone when there is NO chance for outbreeding, though. The absence of attraction appears in species whose primary sensory social input is more olfactory, leading right into Sapolsky's recognition of neurohormonal information theory. Over 100 years ago, the phenomenon was proposed by Edvard Westermarck, but the two studies within kibbutzim were quantitative, and discussion seems to have isolated a reduction in sexual attraction, but not repulsion/aversion. In the larger study something like .05% - a bit over one-half of one percent married/reproduced together. Other studies of early childhood social intimacy seem to support the validity. As I mentioned, other, nonprimate, species also share the phenomenon. I have not followed primatology (the Rhinencephalon is heavily repurposed and subsumed by other social/cognitive perceptions in primates, although it is clearly connected to conscious/choice response in other animals. There is more to say about Anterior Cingulate and Posterior Cingulate Cortices in cognition than was intimated in this series. Some brains far larger than human have large CCs, and although we cannot measure activity in other animals without inducing inordinate stress, we may expect that structure and near-identical transmitters and hormones may indicate very similar cognitions), but am also interested in incest avoidance and kin recognition occurrence in many species, as humans have severely, genocidally, taken many, many wild species populations down to 5% to 1% of original numbers, fragmenting their habitat so much that isolated subpopulations have become the norm. I note that in many of these persecuted species, that social interaction is relatively unknown, and many complex social interactions are reappearing in some slightly rebounding populations. Insofar as those studying human psychology are concerned (I regard it as a necessary prereq for understanding other species, as more thoughtful and intimate study has been done on the human social animal), it points to the massive aberrance from, or extinguishing of, evolved behaviors under stress, analogous to the "unwanted children" theory mentioned in earlier lectures.

Wow, I really appreciate you taking the time to write such a detailed response. It gives me much to think about. Thank you.

Thats the first proof I've had that someone actually reads what I write in this forum. Thanks for a brief moment of something more than self- awareness!

It's basically saying men from the north are weak... Standing up for themselves really didnt enter their minds, they probably said, 'sorry' and kept walking. -While the guys from the south, were ready to fight if need be. Thats why their blood pressure and cortisol levels were elevated.

@Ismael barrera Oh Yea? Well I'm pretty sure _you'rrre_ the weak one!! - lol... no need to get sassy, besides, was "Holy_Cannoli" not putting down southerners in his original post? I'm just providing a little pushback against the elitist portrayal of those "uncultured, blue-collar southerners." (I mean, most of them have never even heard of a grande double triple double venti soy latte with skim milk... pfft) -Anyway, I disagree. The fact that they had lower cortisol levels indicates to me that the fight or flight response wasn't triggered. They kept their head down and kept walking... Submission. They had no intention of standing up for themselves. - and I'm from NY. ▪︎I think a lot of people try to convince themselves that they're "just more nonchalant", or that they're too civilized for that sort of thing... When in reality they're petrified of confrontation and the possibility of having to physically defend themselves or their loved ones. If you dont possess the mental & physical ability to do harm to someone, then you're not honorable for walking away from an altercation... you're just impotent and lack any other option.

@Ismael barrera and if that fact is correct... I assume those homicides are mostly gang related shootings, which really just demonstrates a lack of respect for human life more than anything else..

I think it's this one Antisocial Punishment Across Societies Benedikt Herrmann1, Christian Thöni2, Simon Gächter1,