Tyler is a great interviewer, especially because he lets the guests speak fully, even when they disagree with him. He doesn't jump in and interrupt with qualifiers about what he originally asked or said. He just lets it be on the table, gives the guest room to speak, and then he gracefully moves onto the next topic. By the way, I have loved Steven Pinker since I read How the Mind Works back when I was 19 in 2006. He's influenced my worldview a lot. Nice vid with two top thinkers.

I am happy to see Tyler Cowen so willing to be refuted. I think Pinker positions are incredibly sensible. Very good conversation.

If i only had 25 seconds to show someone why Pinker is so awesome (20'20" - 20'45") would sum it up perfectly 😃

It's great hearing Pinker meet Cowen halfway by calling Chomsky a kind of cult leader

Wow...two of my favorite persons talking together...wow.

That constant, subtle background noise is Stephen's luscious hair rubbing on the microphone stem.

One reason that I find listening to Steve Pinker as useful is that his well spoken words influence how I speak to others. He is calm, precise, and useful with his words - a mastery that is as universally useful as language itself.

love the throwback to the 18th century with the "beethoven" hairdo

The very last question and answer was one of the most brilliant part of this brilliant interview. Any intellectually honest person can potentially become an authority on any number of subjects; one must only avoid tribal-group think and persevere in their pursuit of truth and their articulation of it, overcoming any opposition which attempts to deter them.

can you imagine a child wanting you to read better angels of our nature as a bedtime story lol

Imagine a world exclusively populated with people of Pinker's intelligence and temperament.

44:02 to 44:59 This is typically true about causing general effects on systems. Antisocial or destructive actions which go against the functionality of mechanical objects, systems of objects, groups of people, and individual's rights and wellbeing can be most easily accomplished by removing or altering any fundamentally entwined part of that system... It is much easier to throw a wrench into a set of gears than to design, machine, and set up a collection of interacting gears. The same is true for political maneuvering; it is often more politically effective to destabilize opponents by deriding their positions and public persona than to focus on building support for one's own functioning political stance on issues. I think this leads into the question of 'to what extent are people willing to protect others' rights and wellbeing and how do unusual cases of oppressive forces arise?' Meddling with other entities doings in unscrupulous ways can successfully allow for the prioritization of one's own goals if done so tacitly. These tacit kind of tactics bring into scope the limited amount of intelligence and understanding that frequently exists with the people inhabiting these socially dishonest and conniving roles within society who are intelligent enough to receive social attention but not intelligent enough to do so carefully and constructively. Perhaps humans will more commonly reach plateaus of rationality and progress with how our technological landscapes develop. Just think about something like...KZfaq comments. Nobody intelligent ever reads or writes those meaningless rants.

I think Pinker is a genius and explains things so a normal person can understand.

That second person in the Q and A, has a chance to ask a question for one of the world's renowned psychologists and he asks about dreaming about Joseph from the bible?

The $10k bomb idea at 40:00 is a brainless question to pose. Pinker is excellent of course. His favorite tie, btw. :-)

anybody here who thinks Pinker is Rob Lowe with a wig?

"Enlightenment now" - so minutes 23 to 25 was where Pinker got the title for his future book from ?! Or Cowen that prescient? - Anyway, what an AMAZING conversation!

I am also intrigued by irregular verbs, but I didn't really hear any answer as to how "go" became "went" in the past....

I dont think anyone enjoyed this dialogue as much as I did

He said that verbs simplify for all generations thereafter.... I am sure he did not mean that. I know, in colloquial Canadian French, a few counter examples of this. Verbs in -ier like étudier (study) , chier (shit) and marier (marry), which are simple 1st conjugation, started to conjugate, partly, in the working class, like the -ir verbs. 'Ils étudient' becomes 'ils étudissent'. I say partly because `vous étudiez' remains, same applies to imperfect tense. (I have not heard 'vous étudissez') So it is certainly a complication of an otherwise regular verb. Anyway languages left on their own have to simplify in some ways and complexify in other ways depending on patterns. If this was not true, the cavemen would have spoken the hardest language on ever.

I think Pinker is smarter than Chompsky, and he's a better speaker

*Someone please* - have Steven Listen to *_"Cosmic Gypsies"_* or anything else by artists like Jehst & Baintax/Taskforce, etc. _You should check it, too_.

But “abide” is an expression of the eternal presence as companionship so a past tense wouldn’t make sense at all. So many brilliant academics are unaware of religious culture and its deep and profound influence on word formation-

Warning: do not watch while baked

Pinker maked nice points, who would've thunk. Actually I'm all for regular verbs. At least they should be accepted alongside irregular ones.

We will likely move away from the mind as originating in biology, instead as emerging with quantum events. But we are not there yet.

These two are studs hands down. I hold polymaths in very high regard.

I really enjoy listening to Stephen Pinker and find agreement with much of what he says. Then you have statements at 18:19 that are just patently false. The certainty with which these opinions are presented is just not there even though he and Daniel Dennett would have you take their word for it. It’s more a matter of personality at the end of the day as to what type of person chooses to see the world this way vs that way, no one can be correct about everything so it’s not really a knock against him. Just a shame to dismiss out of hand an entire genre of questions and problems that…to be frank…arguably more intelligent people have done and continue to take seriously.

Is it just me or is there someone behind the camera with an open mic eating for the course of most of this interview? What is that sound.. sounds like chewing.

What does it say about Pinker that he gets so stumped by seemingly innocuous questions?

I don't like a word that only seemed to find new life when covid hit, and that word is: COHORT. In my day, that was a deragatory term and I don't appreciate my grandchildren's peer group being called a cohort. We seem to eager today to catergorize people.

what a dumb question, nuclear weapons are not easy to blow up are they*?but the desires would be there

Underrated, overrated: 33:07

Hmm, punted on the "biggest mistake" question. Tyler had him stumped. Not a good look for Pinker, especially the lame attempt to justify the punt. What, too much ammunition for your critics waiting in the shadows?

The illusion of welfarism live in the Netherlands, you are completely deluded about the other side of the spectrum. People starving to death.

I had to skip past pinker's nuclear weapons ramblings on the discussion of the increased power and reduced cost of technology and its application to the democratization of weaponry. Sadly blind and uninmaginative. Biological weapons? Designer's viruses coded and printed in a cave? AI? Etc etc. He needs to read Bostrom or any technocrat. Slightly disappointed by Pinker here. He clearly doesn't understand the fundamental properties of technology.

There is a ceiling to the achievement possible for this man as he has handicapped himself by the unsubstantiated and erroneous idea that there is no reality besides the material, he is an atheistic materialist. There is telepathy, there is precognition, there are other intelligent beings not made of the same material as matter/energy stuff. Such blind people are useful idiots because they are applying their high intelligence to the chosen area of study providing us with the limits of materialism to explain full reality.

Oh look! It's the guy that made a career out of riding Chomsky's coat tails, how cute!