Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
sapinker's profile
Steven Pinker
Steven Pinker
Steven Pinker
Verified account
@sapinker

Tweets

Steven PinkerVerified account

@sapinker

Cognitive scientist at Harvard.

Boston, MA
pinker.wjh.harvard.edu
Joined January 2010

Tweets

  • © 2018 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    Steven Pinker‏Verified account @sapinker Oct 4

    How to use Bayesian reasoning to think through whether Kavanaugh did It (and to be aware of the role of prior biases in our assessment). by Eric Saundhttps://medium.com/@saund/did-kavenaugh-do-it-9fb3e08bb2a3 …

    1:26 PM - 4 Oct 2018
    • 384 Retweets
    • 1,155 Likes
    • د. طارق الجماز Levi Turk Syed Rafi Mazda Karimi Sina Rahbin Nikhil Jitendran Dario Octavio Scotto Jessica Arend Ro
    154 replies 384 retweets 1,155 likes
      1. New conversation
      2. Neil Peden‏ @RaifYtinav Oct 4
        Replying to @sapinker

        Anyone who thinks that they can ascribe probabilities to the various propositions is deluded. It makes a mockery of both science and justice, and is quite alarming.

        6 replies 3 retweets 70 likes
      3. Andrew Brown‏ @roughlyandrew Oct 5
        Replying to @RaifYtinav @sapinker

        But what is the alternative? We do this every day with Likert scales. And if the mean of the error of the probabilities ascribed by the voting senators is zero, would we reach a just result?

        1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
      4. Neil Peden‏ @RaifYtinav Oct 5
        Replying to @roughlyandrew @sapinker

        Creating bogus models is a waste of energy that should be spent weighing Ford’s Senate testimony against prior inconsistent statements and other evidence, incl statements of other (alleged) witnesses. Strongest arguments against her are not Kavanaugh’s evidence but rather her own

        1 reply 2 retweets 36 likes
      5. TakingHayekSeriously‏ @FriedrichHayek Oct 13
        Replying to @RaifYtinav @roughlyandrew @sapinker

        Nailed it. There is endless evidence that Ford is lying about a countless number of things.

        0 replies 1 retweet 14 likes
      6. End of conversation
      1. New conversation
      2. the grumpy hypnotist‏ @steveroh Oct 4
        Replying to @sapinker

        interesting.. but wouldnt one also need to include probability, if one is open to possibility that Ford is part of Democrat conspiracy, that the (hypothetical) conspirators could find someone like her, not just an estimate of her coming forth even if she knew she wasnt assaulted?

        5 replies 1 retweet 32 likes
      3. John Toogood‏ @toog416 Oct 4
        Replying to @steveroh @sapinker

        A good illustration of your point is around the Swetnick/ Avenatti allegation. If Swetnick never met K, what are the chances she'd accuse him, knowing that Ford had? Vanishingly small. What are the odds that SOMEBODY with questionable credibility would? Probably pretty good.

        3 replies 1 retweet 21 likes
      4. Tweet unavailable
      5. John Toogood‏ @toog416 Oct 4

        Because what matters to the logic is whether Kavanaugh gets accused, not whether it's Swetnick or somebody else who does it. The likelihood that Bob Smith from Framingham MA won the lottery yesterday is low; the likelihood that somebody won the lottery yesterday is much higher.

        2 replies 0 retweets 25 likes
      6. the grumpy hypnotist‏ @steveroh Oct 4
        Replying to @toog416 @sapinker

        yes, and this is why a similar process ought to be run on the "Did the Democrats do it?".. "it" referring to setup using someone (Ford or not) as their vehicle (i have no idea whether thats true or not), result of that would then feed into the "Did Kavanaugh do it?"

        0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
      7. End of conversation
      1. New conversation
      2. Scott Fruehwald‏ @ScottFruehwald Oct 4
        Replying to @sapinker

        This exercise is meaningless because it is dependent on cognitive biases. You can't come to a reasoned conclusion if the foundation is based on biases.pic.twitter.com/xFEWvk9kQJ

        4 replies 3 retweets 20 likes
      3. Scott Fruehwald‏ @ScottFruehwald Oct 5
        Replying to @ScottFruehwald @sapinker

        Garbage in; garbage out.

        0 replies 1 retweet 5 likes
      4. End of conversation
      1. New conversation
      2. Andy Ellis‏ @theandyellis Oct 4
        Replying to @sapinker

        I'll just leave this here for consideration - “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” ― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy

        2 replies 6 retweets 18 likes
      3. 1 more reply
      1. New conversation
      2. Becoming Other‏ @becomeother Oct 4
        Replying to @sapinker @G_S_Bhogal

        It is essential here to consider the plausibility of other hypotheses. The main one is that Democrats groomed Ford to lie in order to take down Kavanaugh. That seems really shady, but if you're familiar with how dirty politics can be, it not implausible.

        3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes
      3. DarkViperAU‏ @DarkViperAU Oct 4
        Replying to @becomeother @sapinker @G_S_Bhogal

        Isn't it weird how the same people yelling about evidence and due process seem convinced the democrats are the master conspirators with literally no evidence and chant 'lock her up' every chance they get?

        3 replies 0 retweets 16 likes
      4. End of conversation
      1. New conversation
      2. Patterson‏ @mppatterson23 Oct 4
        Replying to @sapinker

        I tend to align with the analysis of @SamHarrisOrg expounded on this weeks Waking Up Podcast #139

        8 replies 0 retweets 29 likes
      3. mike robinson‏ @F64Mike Oct 4
        Replying to @mppatterson23 @sapinker @SamHarrisOrg

        Me too

        0 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
      4. End of conversation
      1. BITFU‏ @BITFU_Inc Oct 4
        Replying to @sapinker

        On probability, I tend towards @nntaleb. Regardless, here's my Bayesian reasoning for you: The chances that the author of this article is an idiot who thinks he's way smarter than he really is: 126.7%. Think super-saturation--but for idiots.

        0 replies 2 retweets 12 likes
        Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
        Undo
      1. New conversation
      2. Helian‏ @HelianUnbound Oct 4
        Replying to @sapinker

        Does it really matter? Apparently "rehabilitation" is yesterday. We should get rid of juvenile "correctional" facilities. Adolescents who do anything wrong should bear the stigma for life, and be denied any position of authority or responsibility, no? How about scarlet letters?

        1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
      3. DarkViperAU‏ @DarkViperAU Oct 4
        Replying to @HelianUnbound @sapinker

        ....or just people who lie repeatedly in their hearing shouldn't be allowed on the Supreme Court? Beyond that, a person who was in juvenile corrections would have served their time and hopefully shown remorse. This does not describe Brett if he actually did it...

        1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
      4. Helian‏ @HelianUnbound Oct 4
        Replying to @DarkViperAU @sapinker

        Congratulations! You've demonstrated yet again that leftists can detect witches without anything as complicated as a trial. Since they're all perfect, they throw the first stone with alacrity. Jesus' adulteress would have been dead meat.

        2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
      5. DarkViperAU‏ @DarkViperAU Oct 4
        Replying to @HelianUnbound @sapinker

        Also, as I am sure you know by now, a trial is not necessary to determine what is most likely true (especially as this isn't a criminal proceedings). Or else how could you confirm it was a witch hunt without a trial? Or claim Brett is innocent...without a trial...

        1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      6. Helian‏ @HelianUnbound Oct 4
        Replying to @DarkViperAU @sapinker

        Exactly! Americans have always stood proudly for the principle, "Guilty until proven innocent!", right? Funny thing, Bill Clinton "likely" lied, but that didn't matter, did it? "Believe the woman," unless it's Juanita Broaddrick!

        1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
      7. DarkViperAU‏ @DarkViperAU Oct 4
        Replying to @HelianUnbound @sapinker

        I mean all those people who cry 'lock her up' every week seem to hold to that principle. In this case, it's not a criminal preceding, it's a matter of what is most likely true. He lied. A lot. He dodged questions and was conspiratorial. He isn't a suitable SCJ.

        1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      8. Helian‏ @HelianUnbound Oct 4
        Replying to @DarkViperAU @sapinker

        It's amazing how acute your ability to detect wrongdoing becomes when it's a matter of ideological expedience.

        1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      9. DarkViperAU‏ @DarkViperAU Oct 4
        Replying to @HelianUnbound @sapinker

        I am surprised you know how acute I am at finding wrongdoing, or how quick I am to judgment, in other cases. Do I know you? Have we met? Don't you need to be chanting 'lock her up' (code for let us not assume guilt before due process) somewhere?

        0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
      10. End of conversation

    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.

      Promoted Tweet

      false

      • © 2018 Twitter
      • About
      • Help Center
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Cookies
      • Ads info