I've seen a lot of IYI nonsense from Dawkins, Dennett, and Pinker. I don't think I could ever take any of the seriously.
-
-
Replying to @MimeticValue @Failed_Buddhist and
As an undergrad, I got introduced to a number of groundbreaking ideas by the books and lectures of all three of them. These ideas are still considered to be mostly true today! I owe them a great debt.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @Failed_Buddhist and
I've never read them. They just sounded really stupid on video, making some very basic logical errors. I used to like Sam Harris until I found Taleb, who I derived far more utility from.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MimeticValue @Plinz and
Dawkins in particular specializes in sounding stupid on video. I do recommend reading The Selfish Gene and maybe also The Ancestor's Tale. His writings on evolutionary biology are quite good. I enjoyed Pinker's book The Language Instinct. Haven't been impressed by his others.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @MimeticValue and
Dennett has written tons of short articles and I can't recall off the top of my head which is the best starting point, but it's worth learning his perspective. I strongly disagree with his reductionist stance but he articulates that stances very well.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @MimeticValue and
Dennett comes across as a huge jerk in person (I've met him a couple of times) so you'll have to forgive his personality when judging his ideas. Same with Dawkins. Similar personality issues. Well mannered jerks. Pinker is at minimum an actually nice person (or LARPs it well).
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @Plinz and
My criticism of them isn't that they are nice/mean, they are just plain wrong once you understand the Talebean perspective on risk. Pinker is actually too nice. I find him hypocritical for being for free speech, but never actually saying anything risky or offensive.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MimeticValue @Plinz and
he's said plenty of risky/controversial things lately. insofar as it's become controversial to pro-actively defend Western enlightenment (i.e. science and reason and secularism and liberalism) in left-wing academic settings in this current political clusterfuck.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @MimeticValue and
he's also argued against the "blank slate" view of mind (he has a whole book about this topic called The Blank Slate) which is a very controversial topic. it seems uncontroversial to us, perhaps, because it's just obvious that biology influences behavior. but there it is.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @Plinz and
Idk, maybe he is controversial to some. To me, he's just a naïve optimist who's a shill for paper clip maximizers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
well, as I said previously, I find his work on psychology and linguistics to be very good and his work on politics and history to be mediocre, and yeah, maybe a bit naively optimistic.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.