Steven Pinker on Noam Chomsky's theory of Linguistics & Politics (Part 3/3)

[dnch]

too bad it cuts, i wanted to hear more

[dnch]

socialism is for robots, not for people, russian people know it and paid for it with many lives

[stephenblackman2003a]

@dnch Check out a video on youtube called "Chomsky on socialism".

[JagjeetMann]

absolute idiotic contradiction at the end, "while I believe humans have a creative side, they also have a dark side of nature," so we should accept the current system because it caters to the dark side? what a moron.

[JagjeetMann]

lol @ Steven Pinker, nice guy but the same guy who's going to be guest lecturing at a new private University opening in London soon which has three times the fee amount of the already tripled fees.

[Alimantado91]

I assume Chomsky would see a future society with radically different aims and social relations to one with just politicians from a working class background. The withering away of the state, classes, the abolition of private property are all anarchist aims. This would require a complete political, economic and social revolution. Read up on the Paris Commune, early Soviets in Germany and Russia or George Orwell's description of revolutionary Barcelona in 1937. Very different from public ownership

[Shenlong86]

In "The blank State" Pinker said that he was a teenage anarchist until he witnessed some people doing some BAD STUFF during a police strike, after which he concluded law and order capitalism is the only way for humanity. Now I have never met an anarchist who believe that you should get rid of the police without get rid of the state-capitalist hierarchical structure first.

[qrqrqrqr1]

@Shenlong86 Well he said in the interview that he adopted a somewhat Hobbesian view of human nature. That is that there's a dark side to humans that isn't going to go away just by putting them in the right environment. The fact that people screw each other over more when law breaks down seems to demonstrate this. I think people are quite altruistic to friends and family, but when moving out to strangers, altruism quickly dissipates, which is consistent with Pinker's evolutionary psychology.

[distatic]

I agree with Pinker that it is hard to see what part of the language theory is historical (format affecting it like oral-traditions, written,..) or psychological (internal language, result of peacocking,...)

Wikipedia and other communities on-line might show that Chomsky is right after all (people contributing without any obvious benefits)

Also Chomsky opposes hierarchal institutions (corporations, dictatorships,..) which are not justifiable. He is for a government what is democratic.

[S2Cents]

..it cuts off right as the interviewers says, "I think description of uh um, of Chomsky's uh uh um Chonmsky's focusing of the creative impulse in human..."

I wonder what he said next.

"...is totally right-on dude. I like to talking to you Steven. You are so articulate. And I like your hair too. Gimme a kiss!"

[stephenblackman2003a]

Thou art funny, Steven Pinker. You are a fan of liberal democracy the same type of 'democracy' in which people choose between the representatives of corporate oligarchies, in which governments raid and terrorise underdeveloped countries to line the pockets of corporations and tax the domestic poor to enrich bankers, sujugate any true democratic impulse home and abroad to the interests of private financial tyranies. The answer in politics is true democracy (also known as socialism).

[simonburbank]

@stephenblackman2003a Socialism is not true democracy, it's true totalitarianism.

[dnch]

@stephenblackman2003a yeah, right, ask in russia

[stephenblackman2003a]

@dnch: I watched this doc some time ago and there was a Wiccan woman on it being interviewed about witchcraft. She insisted witchcraft is a form of science. I'll start taking the USSR parody of democracy (socialism) seriously when I start taking Wiccan science seriously - never!

[raoulvaneigem1]

Steven Pinker does not have the slightest idea of what anarchism is

[DerEchteSenf]

@raoulvaneigem1 There are bazillion ideas of anarchism. But what he is stating here is what he thinks anarchy would look like if people would really try it. If you want to refute that with an idea how anarchist want anarchy to look like, you are not making a very strong point. Also he probably knows. He just does not believe it works.

[raoulvaneigem1]

@DerEchteSenf in fact there have been bazillion cases where anarchism has worked

[DerEchteSenf]

@raoulvaneigem1 What would you consider to be good evidence it has worked?

[raoulvaneigem1]

@DerEchteSenf it worked for about 99% of human history, and is still working among, say, the Piaroa, Tiv, Pintupi, etc... also in many places where there is no formal government, during the Spanish revolution, and in so many other everyday life situation where people do not want police around and do not start killing each other. In 'Fragments of an anarchist anthropology' David Graeber explains this much better

[DerEchteSenf]

@raoulvaneigem1 Then you say, that not-independet communities count as evidence that anarchism works. You are free to believe that, but I don't. I admit that there are some fascinating facts in discorved in field studies sometimes, but I know of no utopian government-free zone I personally consider to offer a "decent life" explicitly in regard to freedom, not luxuary. The important factors are not government but power sturctures of any kind. They exist everywhere on earth.

[raoulvaneigem1]

@DerEchteSenf yes, don't get me wrong. I'm talking about non-state societies, not about society without forms of authority (of course those exist, they have to exist in some form, especially between parents and children). But there have been all sorts of non-state societies that can be considered as free and truly democratic (depending, of course, on your definition of freedom). Anthropology offers a great variety of examples.

[blahbl4hblahtoo]

@raoulvaneigem1 Jesus Christ. "anarchists" are so fucking thought police these days...calm the fuck down. your non-ideology that is never used anywhere is safe from Steven Pinker. Go back to drooling over Ron Paul and polishing your gold coins.

[PeeteyP]

What's the interviewer's name, and where can I find the rest of the interview? Thanks for uploading this!

[mitomino]

@PeeteyP The interviewer's name is Samuel Jay Keyser, Emeritus Professor of the Department of Linguistics at MIT. Like you, I would also like to find the rest of the interview. Any help? Thanks.

[Jimmy77777]

@mitomino The interview occurred on the occasion of Steven Pinker's departure from MIT to Harvard in 2003. Google "Pinker's Farewell", and you should be able to find the entire two hour interview on the MIT website.

[rhth79]

I disagree that anarchy would lead to the violent behavior he suggests. Empirical evidence is there to suggest that, but the assumption is human nature has inherently violent characteristics. Today we have free and open information, and we live in a technological age so I feel that assumption is false, because we don't have to live in the ignorance we always have. The characteristics we have are based on our environment, and now we can create one that will emphasize science and creativity.

[Ichtiostega]

1. Anarchists imo don't necessarily have a humanist view of human nature. It is because we know what humans are capable of that we won't allow anyone to have power over others. Unlike our authoritarian counterparts who tell the myth of the "benevolent masters".

2. Hobbes argument about the leviathan is logically false and a very weak position to defend state coercion.

[Ichtiostega]

@Ichtiostega 3. Reducing evolution to Hobbes bellum omnium contra omnes is false. Kropotkin already showed in 1902 that mutualism is a viable part of Evolution.

[Ichtiostega]

@Ichtiostega Pinker probably should've concerned himself more with Chomsky's political work and his branch of political philosophy and especially his work on the media. If he had done so, he probably wouldn't be such a big fan of "liberal democracy" but actually see it as the joke that it is.

[qrqrqrqr1]

@Ichtiostega It doesn't follow that because mutualism occurs in nature that human nature doesn't have a dark side, which is all that Pinker was claiming in this clip.

[slovakmath]

6:40 steven is incorrect in his statements about traits, he claims a trait (language in this case) has to provide usefulness in order for natural selection to choose that given trait. Most evolutionists, including Dennet, Dawkins etc recognize that this statement is wrong too.

All you have to do is consider the Peacocks tail. Sometimes, given traits are selected through NS because of their ability to impress the opposite sex. So perhaps language is the \same thing, maybe Chomsky is right

[AndyDrewww]

@slovakmath Such a trait could be contributed to natural selection. Elaborate tail feathers attracting a mate increases the chance of reproduction.

[slovakmath]

@AndyDrewww did you even read anything i wrote? whats exactly what I said

[AndyDrewww]

@slovakmath Yes. You stated that Steven Pinker's comments about a trait providing usefulness in order for natural selection to chose it is incorrect. You then used Peacocks feathers as an example of this. I then proceeded to speak about the usefulness of the feathers to show that this was, at least, not a good example of what you were trying to prove. If i am missing something I'm sorry, please further explain what you were saying to me.

[khasab]

where's the rest of it?

[astudyofeverything]

If only I could live for two lifetimes and make the next dedicated to linguistics.

[hi0u91e9]

for the record pinker doesn't understand chomsky's argument. When chomsky refers to language not being about communication--he is not referring to "language" in a colloquial sense--but the language acquisition device (LAD). to say that language in the folk sense of the term is useful for communication is too vague to mean anything, and if it is in anyway specific, it is trivial

[intestinomedicino]

@hi0u91e9 I think that reading Chomsky but specially watching his videos, one gets the idea that Steven Pinker conveys here, yet oversimplified if you want, but straight to the point. It's like comparing Einstein with Hawking, or the former with Newton, the new kid will construct over the ideas of the teachers, ideas that the alumni can take further into development, that doesn't make him greater just give him the new edge, this is the very essence and one of the great beauties of science.

[foketesz]

I basically agree with him regarding the issue of language as a communication device undergoing darwinian evolution. But Chomsky could also be right and not in conflict with Darwin. The latter said that nature selects for survival, man selects for appearance. Language as an outlet for aesthetic creation doesn't sound far off under this light. I still think Pinker's position is more solid, but Chomsky is not on a dead track either. A great debate (and a great host too)

[johnvattic1234]

The guy who's not Pinker is so bad at speaking. Having said that however, the incredible eloquence that Pinker boasts would make any other person look like a bumbling ball of stutters.

[KenMacMillan]

I just gained a new respect for Steven Pinker.

[cdekeule]

Good description about Chomsky's underlying view of human nature as driven by an intrinsic need to express oneself creatively, but then near the end his political views become somewhat misrepresented as Steven Pinker seems to pinpoint them on an oversimplified view of anarchism, resulting in incorrect representations of Chomsky's views on government and democracy.

[DonVoghano]

@cdekeule What Pinker completely fails to understand is that Chomsky includes the mechanics of power into his (quite fluid) assessment of human nature: Power as just another product of nature upon which humans expand creatively.

His idea of anarchy is not Smurfville. It is based on a critical citizenry who constantly struggles against a Nietzschian "will to power" both intimately and collectively. That's what he means when he talks about intellectual self defense and basic moral principles!

[Junkyousha]

Should any product or service be provided at the barrel of a gun?

[hrmIwonder]

Most intellectual pursuits are not primarily driven by money. It's short sighted to think that a profit driven system is the only conceivable form of social organization that would be effective, there are other incentives. Liberal democray and anarchism are not necessarily in conflict. If you take out the romanticism of some anarchists, the core concepts still remain. Pinker's "The Blank Slate" is an amazing read, recommended for everyone.

[foketesz]

@hrmIwonder

and most of the arts, albeit you can make loads of money doing it, are driven but something far more powerful and internal.

[hrmIwonder]

I seem to think that the common characterization of anarchism as being no government is very misleading. In effect, you would have government, it'd just take a very different form than we have today.

[qrqrqrqr1]

@hrmIwonder Having heard Chomsky's views in "The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism", I'd have to agree. He seems to be advocating a global government which centrally plans the economy, but with elected representatives that have short term limits and streamlined impeachment procedures. It's super confusing though because he also quotes Thoreau saying, "the best government is that which doesn't govern at all". It's like a weird double-think where he wants to both strengthen and abolish government.

[Alimantado91]

@qrqrqrqr1 I think Chomsky advocates worker control and self management of production. Planning in this sense is very different from our current state capitalist societies in that it co-ordinates production to meet human need and not profit, co-operation rather than competition.

[qrqrqrqr1]

@Alimantado91 I understand that he calls it "workers control" and "self-management", but the actual substance behind the rhetoric is basically a form of democratic socialism as far as I can tell. When he says "worker ownership" he really means "public ownership", which in practice means gov't ownership. It's just that he seems to think that when the gov't is comprised of working class people rather than wealthy career politicians that it will cease to be a government and will instead be anarchy.

[platermanone]

Why seemingly pointless (from a Darwinian perspective) creative minds? How about invoking sexual selection as a plausible candidate. Females dig an arty mind (and dig copulating with agents containing those minds) so why not humour, wit, art, vocabulary, charm, poetry, music and dance as Darwinian phenotypes for primarily spreading genes?

[thisisfunah]

great talk... thanks for posting!

[colinstrapps]

(continued). I don't see any contradiction between these two conceptions of language: one describes how language works, and the other describes the process of natural selection by which the human species came to possess the faculty for language.

[kpirooz92]

@colinstrapps

One conflict is scientific, over whether language is an adaptation or exaptation, meaning a by-product of other adaptations. Pinker believes the former, Chomsky is unsure, and seems to be inclined towards the latter.

[kpirooz92]

@colinstrapps

The other conflict, which is a related philosophical problem, is over how an utterance represents the utterer's intentions. Are there "communicative intentions" meaning something like does the utterer intend to produce an effect in their audience by means of recognition of the intention? Or are they just expressing themselves for some other reason. Some philosophers, like Grice and John Searle believe something like the former, and Chomsky doesn't quite agree again.

[colinstrapps]

I don't know much about Chomsky's theory of language, but I think Pinker's monologue may contain a misperception of it. Pinker states - correctly- that Chomsky views human language as a mechanism that is primarily driven by spontaneous creative impulses. However, Pinker goes on to say that this contradicts his own, utilitarian view of language: that is, language exists because members of the species who had linguistic faculties were better equipped to survive and pass on their genes.

[gimlithepimp88]

interesting thanks for posting!