55:20 Why would the IRA have used suicide bombers when it could preserve its miniscule active membership using timers?
Catholicism had nothing to do with rejecting the tactic; these thugs were hardly church-goers during the lethal modern period. It was simply not commonly used tactic at the time.
However, if it had been mooted, recruiting young radicals from Derry slums, particularly in the feisty '70s, might have been easy. Facing live rounds from the British Army was already suicidal.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Wouldn't that Norway shooting be a terroist attack too? what about kids shooting up schools, thats terrorism too isnt it? Dont just blame it on muslims
@cnestudy1 I agree, besides the fact that f*d up kids shooting their fellow students isn't terrorism. It's not intended to produce results or kill someone for a higher goal. It's a result of the extreme individualism of our society.
Yes, the Norwegian shooting was done by a Christian loon with a weird and squid world view.
School shooting are of the type (if I get this video) that in the video was used to describe Women Suicide Bombers.
No one is blaming the Muslims, it is just that Religion is "a virus of the mind", it makes people more violent in the name of some unseen cosmic dictator. It sounds like some kind of schizophrenia.
11:24 A Mistake? The kurdish workers party suicide bomber against Turkey wasn't actually pregnent, she was disguised as a pregnant woman to hide the bomb.
in every society, there are people that dont have empathy as the rest of us know it. its universal, and i agree that all of us have to deal with it. in some societies, things are structured in such a way that some of these become surgeons. highly paid professionals that can execute difficult brain surgery with precision, because emotions dont get in the way. in other societies they become hired snipers (libya?) or just violent thugs with semi-automatic weapons.
Dr. Thomson doesn't mention this, but I think the reason the amount of war deaths in the twentieth century is so much lower than it would have otherwise been, five hundred million instead of two billion, is the advent of technology. It allows us to kill without closeness.
@thetwentyteens ok i have to ask. where did you get the statisic of two billion people? thats almost a 3rd of the worlds population. are you telling me we lost 1/3 of the worlds population in this war?
That's the number Andy Thomson gives in the presentation. That's the only reason I mentioned it.
And he's not referring to one war. He's referring to all the wars of the twentieth century. And I believe I'm quoting the 500 million death number. Not 2 billion.
I left this comment a month ago, so I'll have to rewatch the vid to see exactly what's being said. Talk to you soon. Take care.
@thetwentyteens if you're quoteing someone i guess its not so bad. but he is still clearly misinformed because the current world population is around 6.6 billion. theres no way that during the 20th century we even came close to 500 million people dead from wars. maybe wars, natural disasters, disease and starvation. but not just war. im sorry but even 500 million in an extreme number. maybe if we had a world war. but im afraid andy thomson may be talking out his ass.
@BigMidget06 500 mil isn't far off. Mexican Revolution: 2 mil WWI: 65 mil Russian civil war: 9 mil WWII: 72 mil Korean War: 3.5 mil Vietnam: 6 mil USSR - Afghanistan: 2 mil 2nd Sudanese War: 2 mil 2nd Congo War: 5.4 mil Iran-Iraq war: 2 mil Gulf War: 0.037 mil This doesn't represent all wars of the 20th century (Or genocides, which he likely included. See "lethal raiding"). You're being silly to claim that all of what he said is BS because of a loose estimate that may be off by a small factor.
@BigMidget06 The 2 billion number is what he says you should expect in terms of war deaths during the 20th century, if you were to assume the same death rate due to wars as the death rate which was found due to wars in tribal societies. Then he says we are actually LESS violent and points to 500 million. Dude, it's a rough estimate thrown out from memory. I don't even think it's all that far off. It's not like it's off by orders of magnitude. It might be off by a factor of two, at most.
I like how Thompson breaks it down. Most who speak of suicide bombers are angry and just go on about how wrong it is. He really helps in genuinely understanding how a person could commit such a horrible act.
I'm always really stunned by how Dr. Thompson articulates his flow of ideas. Such radiance and clarity in his speech. Hes like a more vibrant version of spock.
Someone asked why there were not people suicide bombing Saddam before the invasion . I've heard the answer to this..."Saddam was a horrible sadistic evil leader but he was OUR horrible sadistic evil leader." Can't remember the source.
@anashkhss Is that a joke? There is no evidence to verify whether allah (the god your religion describes) actually exists. That is impossible to prove scienttifically. So if you are trying to say that science proves your religon is correct, then you are simply lying to make yourself feel better.
@anashkhss "Most importantly, we have to face the fact that religion is a man made (dangerous) phenomenon." Does that sound like evidence supporting Islam? I think you might need to watch the video a couple more times.
Convincing and impressive marshalling of supportive evidence and references (pulling up those references seemingly at will during questions!). Of course, can't say if progressing towards a matriacial society will be significally better: i play an online multiplayer game called second life, and in there some people role play such a society out of choice and practice warfare with other matriacial tribes in much the same manner as patriarchal ones it seems. But yes, we def. need proper research.
I wonder if someone can think that way, about "cognitive software" for love etc. and still fall in love and have a normal human life. And perhaps the wish to have a normal human life causes people to avoid thinking this way.
@TotalPackageLexLuger You should watch the video again. The greater conference is promoting science and reason, both of which contributed to the dev. of the Haber-Bosch process, which has helped to feed billions. Without which billions could not live, that is.
These sorts of talks and this sort of conference are exactly what we need if people are to feed the hungry, help stop violence, etc with far more efficiency and with less risk than that done using religious methods.
this is good. i have often thought about the concept around 40:00, the penetrability of human minds by religion. it's NOT hard to fall to a caretaker, or to "communicate" with deceased family and friends. it's almost as if religion has half its work done for itself, because of these infantile mechanisms.
this is good. i have often thought about the concept around 40:00, the penetrability of human minds by religion. it's NOT hard to fall to a caretaker, or to "communicate" with deceased family and friends. it's almost as if religion has half its work done for itself, because of these infantile mechanisms.
The revolution has to start with the police, military, judges lawyers, veterans and politicians, you all swore an oath as I did to defend the constitution, not the man! not write tickets for quotas, strip search for the city but you are our guardians of this freedom we have in america! its all over for them if you guys/gals simply follow thye oath you took b4 God, any government tyranny is finished if you do just that, freedom is finished if you dont
The revolution has to start with the police, military, judges lawyers, veterans and politicians, you all swore an oath as I did to defend the constitution, not the man! not write tickets for quotas, strip search for the city but you are our guardians of this freedom we have in america! its all over for them if you guys/gals simply follow thye oath you took b4 God, any government tyranny is finished if you do just that, freedom is finished if you dont
what is a poor country facing a trillion dollar, modern weapon army amassed and attcking their nation? it is all that they have. they use what ever means that they have at their disposal. when he brought up the japanese he went way off course. they had practised ritual suicide for centuries, centuries before the white man showed up to reap their resources. this cat carries the bake-gene.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
dawkins lost me when he hooked up with this very narrow minded prof.. evolution teaches us that hundreds of species sacrifice themselves, genetically driven, to protect... lets say, a queen bee. the japanese did not need to be talked into becoming kamikaze pilots by the shinto or buddhist monks, thats b.s.. the bee example is a perfect one to illustrate. just being a warrior in the act of war, could be said, one posses a suicidal tendency. another small american mind blinded by his culture.
Thomson is an excellent speaker but he needs to find some synonyms for the word "hijacking." He kinda makes all of existence just sound like perpetual armed robbery.
at the beginning of his speech he gives examples of religious terrorism, and i agree but cant help thinking about all the people OUR beliefs kill..... i.e. all those who die of starvation while we throw away food, all those who die for our "liberations" of other countries(how many Americans even blink an eye when they hear how many Iraqi's died as a result of our invasion?) Our auto industry kills 3o,ooo people in the U.S., our beef industry causes countless heart attacks, i could go on and on
I couldn't agree more. We represent 5 percent of the Earth's population and we use 25 percent of its resources. 35000 children die of starvation and preventable diseases every night in other parts of the world and we don't even flinch.
It's as if we have no conscience.
My friend just visited Holland and he says it's the exact opposite as it is over here, and they're perfectly happy. They go to work on bikes and the don't need to consume energy every second of the day.
Oh god damn it Youtube! you deliver crap like numa numa and whatnot with top-speed, 34263424gb/s, etc but all these videos here treacle like molasses.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this is a great example of how just because your a doctor doesnt mean your any good at getting your point across. I want the 20 minutes back where he just talked about people various people who killed themselves
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I believe there is a more educated view of this exact subject, rather than this lecture being of guess work. Unfortunately I don't think it's available here on youtube.
"David Livingstone - The Muslim Brotherhood, Johannite's & Shabbatean Frankist's"
What religion Mr Thomson? All religious? But they do something irreligious!
Faro, I think it is a case of intelligent people are able to reason that god is a silly crutch for the poor and simple minded and a tool to control the masses for the elite.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
But the elites are those who have the money... they are the one's that have funded the promotion of atheism, as according to the American Atheist researchers.
Guess work? The claims and assumptions Dr. Thomson made are justified through using the scientific method, sufficient evidence based on evolutionary concept and supplying a good explanation to religious and biologically motivated behaviors.
Using the scientific method? No, I reject that. His conclusions are a response to an inherent bias he has. Since the claim is of religious or biological motivations to suicide... not of general behaviors, he denies any relationship of the secular origin of suicide bombing resulting from sociological factors. He goes on to claiming human killing is natural.... and he cites Jane Goodall! Is he going to promote Gulags as did Jane?
...want to be believe in no god or the non-existance of an afterlife because it scared him to conceptionalize the magnitude of nothing after death. That can be a scary thought of course, but learning to accept this thought can be uplifting in the sense that we can learn to live out lives to the fullest now and not have to wait until we have nothing. Great video nonetheless!
This is amazingly insightful! I had never even thought about any of these things. The reasons people's brains are "hijacked" was very interesting. To be able to think that life is somehow one step to another is huge and that killing yourself can be a sacrifice unto marriage in another life (the after-life) is fascinating. Very bizarre to me, however. Perhaps also on top of these reasons could be the fear of nothing after life. I had a conversation with a friend where he said that he didn't
- Saddam did implement a secularist state, but did not particularly oppress islamic religious practice. It would not have been seen necessarily as an outsider (case-in-point US-Christian) invasion & occupation.
- Margaret Thatcher had to appear as strong and authoritative as her male contemporaries in order to survive. A matriarchical influence would need to reach a tipping point of significant numbers of women in positions of power.
Saddam favoured the Sunni Elites, as well as Christian groups as he saw the Shi'a majority as a populist threat.
However, I will mention that some of the people who hated Saddam the most (Salafist extrimists like Al-Qaeda) didnt have a foothold in Iraq before the invasion. Gwynne Dyer makes a point that the invasion of Iraq was precisely the goal of the 9/11 attackers as it gave a big foothold for the ideological expansion of Salafist Extremism.
At any rate, it is important to remember that religion and class are intrinsically linked in much of the former Ottoman/ British-French Protectorate world (as well as many other places effected by colonialism), so, while Saddam may or may not have oppressed any religious group, he certainly did favour the wealthier ethno-religious groups (Sunni and Christian)
For roots of modern islamic terrorism, check out 3-part (BBC of course) film "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear" by Adam Curtis.
It will be difficult and a long time until psychology can classify a religious mindset as a delusion disorder. Religion adherence could be argued to be "normal", since most people believe in one form or another, and pass it on to their offspring in an exponentially increasing world population.
I once read that belief in the afterlife is a subconcious biproduct which stems from sleep.
Every day of our lives we sleep and then wake from that sleep.
It's very easy for some people to make the mistake of seeing death as the same as sleep. That we will wake from it.
We may spend 80 years on this earth sleeping and waking. It's difficult for humans to get our heads around the idea that death unlike sleep, is permanent.
1. He says these men who committed jihad were almost all "mentally healthy", saying nothing of the sort about the women, seeming to imply that the women instead were mentally deranged.
2. He then says the women all (especially) had to deal with loss and abuse (again implying mental disorder?)-- but did he mention that these women come from regions infamous for abuse against women, where it's a high statistical probability?
It's like trying to prove genetics w/ assertion laced w/ patriarchy.
3. However, it's arguable that women who have little left to lose are more likely to commit jihad, but the same must also be true of men, though men are perhaps less predisposed to talk about their feelings of loss b/c of patriarchal expectations to "act tough". I feel this makes the comment about how jihad happens predominantly in occupied regions very cogent. People in occupied territories have less to lose, and their families more to gain, from jihad. Is it desperation more than genetics?
4. I wish he would have spoken of female bonding coalition violence. There are plenty of examples of this-- to name just one, the highly popular all-female Bōsōzoku gangs of Japan and the Sukeban (distinctly). Other commenters are right to see strong bias in the presentation.
5. He disempowers the idea of jihad as a destructive cultural meme by trying to pin the blame on genetics too much. I agree there is a genetic predisposition, but this overemphasis makes his message a bit fatalistic.
...has there every been a mass atrocity that wasn't belief based in motivation? However keep in mind that none but ourselves shall emancipate our own minds; therefore I remind us all that it is only by example that the subjectgated shall understand enough to desire to set themselves free. Least we forget & become tempted by our own feelings to try & force our ways of none belief based thinking on those that have been forced to remain in belief based decision making practices. Peace out comrades
You cant talk about suicide terrorism as if there is only one type of person in every case. of course he is only going to say probably all the time, because statistically speaking, they are PROBABLY represented by a particular group.
in fact they arent...who told you (i mean his opinion) that every bombing is represented by the same group..he is doing nothing but fear...i cant hear it anymore..since 2001 every day, talian, islam,hisbollah an so on...but nobody brings you 100%proof..they want the people to hate a religion not a murder...sorry my englisch is not tha good...
Hmm september 11 and the other terrorist bombings were against civilians. The kamikazes were during war and were tragetting US military personel not civilians. I dont know if thats comparable.
I don't think he mentioned terrorism when comparing them, just called the suicide attacks. His work is not so much about "terrorism" but the mentality of people who conduct suicide attacks.
I agree, kamikaze is a bit different. I don't condone war, but I understand it's rules. Kamikazes were engaged in war with their enemy, taking out as many as they could on their way down. They weren't murdering innocent people because they were fooled into believing that virgins await them.
I doubt that women are less selfish in any way. I think selfish is a word that represents failure. If someone thinks you are selfish then that means that you have failed to affect that person to give to you, where 'give' is meant in a very broad sense. You haven't been smart enough, not used tact and finesse correctly, if you are seen as selfish.
Yes, that's my point. ANYTHING can be called selfish.
Giving your money to the poor can be called selfish. (a tax dodge, to make yourself feel better, to be condescending etc.) Likewise linking suicide to selfishness for one sex and not the other is most likely a bias in interpretation as opposed to "politically-correct fact".
If you really think hard about why you do the things you do then I am sure most are kind of selfish but that is okay because a market economy works really well.
If I would send all my money to some charity anonymously and never tell anyone about it then that would not be selfish but it ain't gonna happen.
I don't understand what your last sentence means. Are you intending to dispute the claim made in the video, that there is a gender difference in what can motivate a suicide bombing?
There are lots of reasons to commit suicide; clinical depression, brain washing, extreem-end manipulation for the powerless, believing that you can do more good with your death than with your life.
I think that both sexes have the access to the same motivations (probably in different %).
I dispute that the males are selfish and the females are not.
It makes a lot of sense to me as a consequence of our different reproductive strategies. A woman's mind had better be a great deal more concerned with rearing her children because that's her only option for reproduction. Without that chance there is little reason to live. A man's mind is more appropriately concerned with being top dog so that more women will want to have his kids. Even it it costs your life, if it makes your brother more attractive then the selective pressure is still there.
My oldest son drives my car. I have no problem giving all my money away to my sons. I guess natural selection rendered me with this coding in the brain.
a fantastic essay by Roy F. Baumeister explains the sex differences stemming from reproductive differences.
One section deals with risk taking behaviour and self protection. Basically: a female can realistically have about 10 kids, but she must remain healthy and safe, consistantly. There is no reproductive reward in taking risks.
For a man taking a big risk, and winning means he can have 10 kids that week just on the fleeting fame.
I could take 20 risks in a week, before, in principle.
I guess men were also needed to fetch food so we got to live long enough to do that. This got me thinking about pros and cons with being a risk taker versus a food fetcher.
I think you're misrepresenting his lecture. He said he based his data on the terrorist attacks/suicide attacks that he has studied. These studies have led him to make generalizations about the gender dynamics in the attacks, but he's not saying that it applies to all such attacks. Generally speaking, he states, women commit such atrocities b/c of victimization of some sort, while the men who do it tend to come from regular, even affluent and stable, backgrounds.
There were a bunch of things that he said in his lecture that together indicate his bias - it was picked up and argued with by several audience members.
He said that he though women were less violent than men, while others suggest that they are just as violent when it means no damage to themselves.
It is the self-protection mandated by reproductive strategies that means you need a mentally damaged woman to blow herself up.
In my opinion, it is as much against self-protection for women as it is with men. Men and women can be burdensome on their families just as much.
I find it less convincing that jihad is a genetic tendency to root out burdensome family members than it is that jihad is a meme that propagates itself.
You misunderstand me. There are dozens of biological systems in place the make women put their safety in front of everything else. They have more surface pain receptors, lower tolerance for adrenaline, lessened risk taking behaviour, lower muscle mass etc.
By self-protection I was talking about our genetic hardwiring.
If sexism is defined as not treating men and women as if they were psychologically identical then all reasonable people are sexist.
They key is not to treat men and women as if they were clones with different genitals (babies are NOT blank slates, gender behavioral differences are in many cases instinctual) but to not treat one gender as if it were lesser than another and to not retaliate against a given individual who does not conform to the gender norm.
Suppose it turns out that our genome and utility to society are tightly correlated in an easily measured way. What is the fair reaction to that predicament? Should we attempt to redress the injustice of birth with, for example, tax rates designed to engineer a parity of economic and social opportunity? (In a perfectly fair world, and all other things being equal, should a smart person have an advantage over morons for no other reason than that they are smart?)
Hmm, that's a difficult question to answer. I assume you mean that an individuals usefulness would be easy to gauge at birth (or, as in a modern Brave New World, we were genetically best disposed to given tasks). I think society would have to make a (non-trivial) balance between favoring individuals that better advance the whole of society and fairness towards individuals who can contribute somewhat less. However I think that it's pretty clear we aren't so clear cut; nurture does count a lot.
Personally I find more worrisome the possibility that a study would show certain correlations of aptitudes for a given GROUP over another. Imagine the most explosive; People of a given race being found to be more intelligent.
I in NO WAY trust governments to treat such information with the nuance, delicacy and understanding of statistics it would need. More likely whole groups would be written off as lesser. This puts the such studies in quite an ethical bind, given their potential consequences.
Wow. Amazing lecture. When the research is done, at the end of the day the answer is obvious. But so much of it would be hard to grasp without proper research.
I don't like the term 'Bright' I'm a realist, those who stupidly follow religion are fantasists. Rationalist or critical thinker would also do as good descriptions as we oppose the ridiculous irrationality and confused thinking that the superstitious and religious rely on.
Do you people just keep these rants on a template of some description and just paste it in to any YouTube video which touches on religion? I don't know why you bother, all people ever see are the deranged ramblings of a religious fanatic. Try posting something relevant, and perhaps more original. Spouting the same thing we've heard a million times before just wont work.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the Brights movement is so stupid. i know you're trying to follow the example of the gay community, by choosing a positive-sounding name, but you chose a name that sounds like it IS the gay community.
At the end, the lady thinks its the mother teaching the violence, not a patriarchy.
but she fails to have done research past anechdotal evidence.
Religion breeds women under harsh parents, mother and father, and those girls grow up to be harsh mothers themselves, mimicking the ways they were raised.
Religion teaches not just the father to be listened to, but the mother is also not to be questioned and taught to be harsh.
With father gone, the mother rules the house over the females.
I think he was off on his views regarding women and violence. It seems to ignore trends which show that in cultures where women are increasingly given equal treatment culturally the numbers regarding violence begin to even out between the sexes (increase in female gangs, etc). The non-violence among women most likely comes from cultural influence rather than genetic. If he wants to trace it back, murderous envy violence occurs between female apes as well; for instance infant murder for revenge.
Yes, there is murderous envy among female apes, but that only further supports his point that the source of these violent acts is very different between the two genders. In fact, he spends about 20 minutes demonstrating the difference in motivation between the genders in humans and non-humans. Did you actually watch the whole lecture? You are right that there is a large cultural component to it, but the basis for the restraint in violence towards women is undeniably biological.
The matriarchal idea was poor. Remember why men are violent? Because violence gets the women. Nobody should be so naive to think that women are saints. If they marry the violent men they approve it or even encourage it. Leaders arent violent themselves. They order other people to be violent. So getting a less violent leader doesnt improve the situation if she is just as likely to order others to violence. Gender isnt the issue its the type of leadership the system creates.
Darvinisti - good one - you only have to look at Monty Python's life of brian when they very astutely point out the women's violent nature by making the entire audience for a stoning made up of women pretending to be men. Utterly hilarious, but scarily accurate. Women are violent and like you say, women who marry violent men are just perpetuating the problem.
Like the idea of teaching children about the psychology of religion and dogmas in general. Scepticism should be tought at elementary level. Children deal with lies and bending of facts everyday so they really can relate to it.
The problem is, people don't want children with critical thinking skills. The last thing you want when you tell your child he's being naughty is an argument on the definition and underlying assumptions regarding 'naughtiness'. Not that I don't think children should be taught those skills lol.
That is not the last thing I want. I would want my children to correct me if my teachings were baseless. I would love to teach my children about what naughtiness is. I belive that when people understand why good behaviour is good they are more likely to behave good. The idea itself will encourage people to act right beyond the authority. Parents wont be around always but ideas can be.
love the video really good
jessyjessy4 4 days ago
you have some great stuff here
thegeffc 5 days ago
This is a great video
willbirful 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
55:20 Why would the IRA have used suicide bombers when it could preserve its miniscule active membership using timers?
Catholicism had nothing to do with rejecting the tactic; these thugs were hardly church-goers during the lethal modern period. It was simply not commonly used tactic at the time.
However, if it had been mooted, recruiting young radicals from Derry slums, particularly in the feisty '70s, might have been easy. Facing live rounds from the British Army was already suicidal.
PaleSilverLight 4 weeks ago
Science helps us protect our minds from parasitic content.
AscendingParadigm 3 months ago 3
Excellent talk by a very interesting, insightful and intelligent chap.
NowKillTheKing 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins has gone off the rails:
search for Richard Dawkins and male privilege on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog.
Participating in flaming a woman because she dares to say 'don't objectify me at a conference'? Poorly done, Dawkins.
8yankee 4 months ago
Wouldn't that Norway shooting be a terroist attack too? what about kids shooting up schools, thats terrorism too isnt it? Dont just blame it on muslims
peace my brothers and sisters
cnestudy1 5 months ago
@cnestudy1 Well this video was before that happened.
KellerDude4 5 months ago
@cnestudy1 I agree, besides the fact that f*d up kids shooting their fellow students isn't terrorism. It's not intended to produce results or kill someone for a higher goal. It's a result of the extreme individualism of our society.
Tarnaggy 3 months ago
@cnestudy1
Yes, the Norwegian shooting was done by a Christian loon with a weird and squid world view.
School shooting are of the type (if I get this video) that in the video was used to describe Women Suicide Bombers.
No one is blaming the Muslims, it is just that Religion is "a virus of the mind", it makes people more violent in the name of some unseen cosmic dictator. It sounds like some kind of schizophrenia.
GegoXaren 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Josh deserves FAR more kudos then he receives, well done on your body of work Sir.
johneamer 8 months ago
Comment removed
johneamer 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch~`,Movies","Online,~~Here;;.
ＷＷＷ.ＳＴＲＥＡＭＭＯＶＩＥＳ１.ＴＫ
COPY:,:THE`;`URL`,,ABOVE,;`
PercivalWall 8 months ago
11:24 A Mistake? The kurdish workers party suicide bomber against Turkey wasn't actually pregnent, she was disguised as a pregnant woman to hide the bomb.
intermender 10 months ago
one thing i want to share:
in every society, there are people that dont have empathy as the rest of us know it. its universal, and i agree that all of us have to deal with it. in some societies, things are structured in such a way that some of these become surgeons. highly paid professionals that can execute difficult brain surgery with precision, because emotions dont get in the way. in other societies they become hired snipers (libya?) or just violent thugs with semi-automatic weapons.
kurtilein3 10 months ago
Dr. Thomson doesn't mention this, but I think the reason the amount of war deaths in the twentieth century is so much lower than it would have otherwise been, five hundred million instead of two billion, is the advent of technology. It allows us to kill without closeness.
thetwentyteens 1 year ago
@thetwentyteens ok i have to ask. where did you get the statisic of two billion people? thats almost a 3rd of the worlds population. are you telling me we lost 1/3 of the worlds population in this war?
BigMidget06 11 months ago
@BigMidget06
That's the number Andy Thomson gives in the presentation. That's the only reason I mentioned it.
And he's not referring to one war. He's referring to all the wars of the twentieth century. And I believe I'm quoting the 500 million death number. Not 2 billion.
I left this comment a month ago, so I'll have to rewatch the vid to see exactly what's being said. Talk to you soon. Take care.
thetwentyteens 11 months ago
@thetwentyteens if you're quoteing someone i guess its not so bad. but he is still clearly misinformed because the current world population is around 6.6 billion. theres no way that during the 20th century we even came close to 500 million people dead from wars. maybe wars, natural disasters, disease and starvation. but not just war. im sorry but even 500 million in an extreme number. maybe if we had a world war. but im afraid andy thomson may be talking out his ass.
BigMidget06 11 months ago
mindsmirror 10 months ago
@BigMidget06 The 2 billion number is what he says you should expect in terms of war deaths during the 20th century, if you were to assume the same death rate due to wars as the death rate which was found due to wars in tribal societies. Then he says we are actually LESS violent and points to 500 million. Dude, it's a rough estimate thrown out from memory. I don't even think it's all that far off. It's not like it's off by orders of magnitude. It might be off by a factor of two, at most.
mindsmirror 10 months ago
am I a bad atheist if I deny the existence of memes? I don't accept the ant and the fluke explanation of suicide bombers.
iamFegor 1 year ago 2
@iamFegor
You're not a bad anything. You're allowed to have whatever opinion you want. And one day you may change your mind on atheism altogether.
thetwentyteens 1 year ago
Awesome channel. One of the best on youtube. And an awesome talk.
thetwentyteens 1 year ago
I am glad to hear these lectures - they are priceless. Thanks for uploading all your videos.
adlozi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Factual Asian brides are there **busizz4me.info**
DonetaGersan 1 year ago
I like how Thompson breaks it down. Most who speak of suicide bombers are angry and just go on about how wrong it is. He really helps in genuinely understanding how a person could commit such a horrible act.
rongenaw 1 year ago
I'm always really stunned by how Dr. Thompson articulates his flow of ideas. Such radiance and clarity in his speech. Hes like a more vibrant version of spock.
gescom666 1 year ago 2
Someone asked why there were not people suicide bombing Saddam before the invasion . I've heard the answer to this..."Saddam was a horrible sadistic evil leader but he was OUR horrible sadistic evil leader." Can't remember the source.
rickylarch 1 year ago
Does anyone know where I can write to Andy Thompson directly?
johneamer 1 year ago
Data, facts, reason. Excellent.
UsqueAdNauseam 1 year ago 2
On the top of my tube:
.
great scientific evidences for Islam : )
.
anashkhss 1 year ago 9
@anashkhss Is that a joke? There is no evidence to verify whether allah (the god your religion describes) actually exists. That is impossible to prove scienttifically. So if you are trying to say that science proves your religon is correct, then you are simply lying to make yourself feel better.
ncawadias 8 months ago
@anashkhss "Most importantly, we have to face the fact that religion is a man made (dangerous) phenomenon." Does that sound like evidence supporting Islam? I think you might need to watch the video a couple more times.
ncawadias 8 months ago
This guys lectures are always very interesting.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago 4
Convincing and impressive marshalling of supportive evidence and references (pulling up those references seemingly at will during questions!). Of course, can't say if progressing towards a matriacial society will be significally better: i play an online multiplayer game called second life, and in there some people role play such a society out of choice and practice warfare with other matriacial tribes in much the same manner as patriarchal ones it seems. But yes, we def. need proper research.
intermender 1 year ago 2
I wonder if someone can think that way, about "cognitive software" for love etc. and still fall in love and have a normal human life. And perhaps the wish to have a normal human life causes people to avoid thinking this way.
toppinzr 1 year ago
Lol at that idiot at the end going on bout the spartans
mamolian 1 year ago 2
HOw does this help feed hungry people. How does this help stop violence. If these people have amazing intelligence, but little wisdom.
TotalPackageLexLuger 1 year ago
@TotalPackageLexLuger You should watch the video again. The greater conference is promoting science and reason, both of which contributed to the dev. of the Haber-Bosch process, which has helped to feed billions. Without which billions could not live, that is.
These sorts of talks and this sort of conference are exactly what we need if people are to feed the hungry, help stop violence, etc with far more efficiency and with less risk than that done using religious methods.
Cheers
hpholland 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is good. i have often thought about the concept around 40:00, the penetrability of human minds by religion. it's NOT hard to fall to a caretaker, or to "communicate" with deceased family and friends. it's almost as if religion has half its work done for itself, because of these infantile mechanisms.
warmstringcheese 1 year ago
this is good. i have often thought about the concept around 40:00, the penetrability of human minds by religion. it's NOT hard to fall to a caretaker, or to "communicate" with deceased family and friends. it's almost as if religion has half its work done for itself, because of these infantile mechanisms.
warmstringcheese 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The revolution has to start with the police, military, judges lawyers, veterans and politicians, you all swore an oath as I did to defend the constitution, not the man! not write tickets for quotas, strip search for the city but you are our guardians of this freedom we have in america! its all over for them if you guys/gals simply follow thye oath you took b4 God, any government tyranny is finished if you do just that, freedom is finished if you dont
ravenwolf789 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The revolution has to start with the police, military, judges lawyers, veterans and politicians, you all swore an oath as I did to defend the constitution, not the man! not write tickets for quotas, strip search for the city but you are our guardians of this freedom we have in america! its all over for them if you guys/gals simply follow thye oath you took b4 God, any government tyranny is finished if you do just that, freedom is finished if you dont
ravenwolf789 1 year ago
Anyone who commits a suicide bombing will wake up to find they'll wake up no more.
Good for them. I've taken up the task of preventing their absurd fatalism, and everyone in the world should join that fight.
It's too bad that this rational thinking upsets so many of you.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thomson is delusional and self absorbed. What a menace to our great society.
ruttersew 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So your saying nothing made everything? That's retarded!
FREEisourband 1 year ago
@FREEisourband: What a strawman account of the Big Bang theory...I'm disappointed.
CathySander 1 year ago
@FREEisourband
no we're not saying that nothing made everything, we're saying that this is how our universe came into exsistance not what came before it
Takua38000 1 year ago
@FREEisourband No, you are retarded.... Or, you dont understand quantum mechanics.
Its ok, not many people do... But read up a little, the mathematics is sound, general understanding is not.
tourettesdetectives 1 year ago
Thank you for posting :)
AlbertDarwin007 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
same old tired atheist rhetoric.
really very boring.
xp34789 1 year ago
@xp34789
Not anywhere near as tiring, destructive, depressing and boring as the theistic dogma.
speedmatters 1 year ago 5
You've been down-voted to 9 without saying anything racist, congratulations!
I wish I could make it 10.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Okay, i'm sorry to say this Richard but this guy is full of shit. You need to remove this video for your site.
exitsattherear 1 year ago
could you explain how he is full of shit?
waksibra 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What a lovely piece of scaremongering.
exitsattherear 1 year ago
what is a poor country facing a trillion dollar, modern weapon army amassed and attcking their nation? it is all that they have. they use what ever means that they have at their disposal. when he brought up the japanese he went way off course. they had practised ritual suicide for centuries, centuries before the white man showed up to reap their resources. this cat carries the bake-gene.
umeboshiatama 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dawkins lost me when he hooked up with this very narrow minded prof.. evolution teaches us that hundreds of species sacrifice themselves, genetically driven, to protect... lets say, a queen bee. the japanese did not need to be talked into becoming kamikaze pilots by the shinto or buddhist monks, thats b.s.. the bee example is a perfect one to illustrate. just being a warrior in the act of war, could be said, one posses a suicidal tendency. another small american mind blinded by his culture.
umeboshiatama 1 year ago
Thomson is an excellent speaker but he needs to find some synonyms for the word "hijacking." He kinda makes all of existence just sound like perpetual armed robbery.
paxson001 2 years ago 4
Thanks, Professor.
thetwentyteens 2 years ago 7
Testing to see if I'm still banned from leaving comments.
thetwentyteens 2 years ago
at the beginning of his speech he gives examples of religious terrorism, and i agree but cant help thinking about all the people OUR beliefs kill..... i.e. all those who die of starvation while we throw away food, all those who die for our "liberations" of other countries(how many Americans even blink an eye when they hear how many Iraqi's died as a result of our invasion?) Our auto industry kills 3o,ooo people in the U.S., our beef industry causes countless heart attacks, i could go on and on
PlanetoftheAtheists 2 years ago
@PlanetoftheAtheists
I couldn't agree more. We represent 5 percent of the Earth's population and we use 25 percent of its resources. 35000 children die of starvation and preventable diseases every night in other parts of the world and we don't even flinch.
It's as if we have no conscience.
My friend just visited Holland and he says it's the exact opposite as it is over here, and they're perfectly happy. They go to work on bikes and the don't need to consume energy every second of the day.
thetwentyteens 2 years ago
Oh god damn it Youtube! you deliver crap like numa numa and whatnot with top-speed, 34263424gb/s, etc but all these videos here treacle like molasses.
Geez!
JewTubeUsername 2 years ago
Thanks, Dr. Buzz-kill.
Jimpsterr 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is a great example of how just because your a doctor doesnt mean your any good at getting your point across. I want the 20 minutes back where he just talked about people various people who killed themselves
dannners 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I believe there is a more educated view of this exact subject, rather than this lecture being of guess work. Unfortunately I don't think it's available here on youtube.
"David Livingstone - The Muslim Brotherhood, Johannite's & Shabbatean Frankist's"
What religion Mr Thomson? All religious? But they do something irreligious!
faro0485 2 years ago
Faro, I think it is a case of intelligent people are able to reason that god is a silly crutch for the poor and simple minded and a tool to control the masses for the elite.
AbelMagwitch73 2 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But the elites are those who have the money... they are the one's that have funded the promotion of atheism, as according to the American Atheist researchers.
faro0485 2 years ago
Can you please show us the quote of the elitist funding of atheism? Where specifically did you get this info? Thanks.
jsrail 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I got that info from the American Atheist website, on their "History of Atheism" section.
"American Atheists | The Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and The Illuminati"
Here in the UK, those behind the Dawkins bus advertisements... nah forget about that paltry sell out.
faro0485 2 years ago
Guess work? The claims and assumptions Dr. Thomson made are justified through using the scientific method, sufficient evidence based on evolutionary concept and supplying a good explanation to religious and biologically motivated behaviors.
lanceawatt 2 years ago 22
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@lanceawatt Aye guess work.
Using the scientific method? No, I reject that. His conclusions are a response to an inherent bias he has. Since the claim is of religious or biological motivations to suicide... not of general behaviors, he denies any relationship of the secular origin of suicide bombing resulting from sociological factors. He goes on to claiming human killing is natural.... and he cites Jane Goodall! Is he going to promote Gulags as did Jane?
faro0485 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I bet if C.S. Lewis was still alive, he'd be able to correct Dawkins on a number of things.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
...want to be believe in no god or the non-existance of an afterlife because it scared him to conceptionalize the magnitude of nothing after death. That can be a scary thought of course, but learning to accept this thought can be uplifting in the sense that we can learn to live out lives to the fullest now and not have to wait until we have nothing. Great video nonetheless!
aghth5 2 years ago 8
This is amazingly insightful! I had never even thought about any of these things. The reasons people's brains are "hijacked" was very interesting. To be able to think that life is somehow one step to another is huge and that killing yourself can be a sacrifice unto marriage in another life (the after-life) is fascinating. Very bizarre to me, however. Perhaps also on top of these reasons could be the fear of nothing after life. I had a conversation with a friend where he said that he didn't
aghth5 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Climate Change is pure Obamaganda, expertly crafted into a manipulative religious dogma for a grossly dumbed-down media robot populace.
Global Warming is purely science-fiction being portrayed as evidence of horrors to come unless we pay new taxes.
Ha! Weak humans are such easy prey for the Jewish Global Media Elite who control us.
Commercial Television is a very reliable and unbiased source, it doesn't lie, whatever the TV says, we obey.
Now fuck you, stay ignorant and pay your carbon tax!
HardlineAthiest 2 years ago
"Hijacks human brains" - describes religion perfectly.
blaqb0x 2 years ago 60
great stuff !!!
5 stars
theIraqiAtheist 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Argh, cameraman, clean that booger out of your nose. I can hear it WHISTLING!
Digeridude 2 years ago
More nitpicks:
- Saddam did implement a secularist state, but did not particularly oppress islamic religious practice. It would not have been seen necessarily as an outsider (case-in-point US-Christian) invasion & occupation.
- Margaret Thatcher had to appear as strong and authoritative as her male contemporaries in order to survive. A matriarchical influence would need to reach a tipping point of significant numbers of women in positions of power.
johnnyfromcanada 2 years ago
According to Hitchens Saddam's regime wasn't very secular at all.. sorry, don't remember the details.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Saddam favoured the Sunni Elites, as well as Christian groups as he saw the Shi'a majority as a populist threat.
However, I will mention that some of the people who hated Saddam the most (Salafist extrimists like Al-Qaeda) didnt have a foothold in Iraq before the invasion. Gwynne Dyer makes a point that the invasion of Iraq was precisely the goal of the 9/11 attackers as it gave a big foothold for the ideological expansion of Salafist Extremism.
9/11 appears to have been successful in this way
Bakuninite 2 years ago 3
At any rate, it is important to remember that religion and class are intrinsically linked in much of the former Ottoman/ British-French Protectorate world (as well as many other places effected by colonialism), so, while Saddam may or may not have oppressed any religious group, he certainly did favour the wealthier ethno-religious groups (Sunni and Christian)
Bakuninite 2 years ago
Some nitpicks:
- Any violent strike against military is war, not terrorism - that distinction must be maintained.
- Stanley Milgrim's study of authority was not an "experiment" strictly speaking - it was not properly controlled.
johnnyfromcanada 2 years ago
Milgram studies have as far as I know been repeated again and again.. otherwise it wouldn't really be wise to mention it in educational literature.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago 2
@Hirnlego999
Yes, I've carried one out myself.
ToHairetikos 2 years ago
Good lecture and Q&A session overall.
For roots of modern islamic terrorism, check out 3-part (BBC of course) film "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear" by Adam Curtis.
It will be difficult and a long time until psychology can classify a religious mindset as a delusion disorder. Religion adherence could be argued to be "normal", since most people believe in one form or another, and pass it on to their offspring in an exponentially increasing world population.
johnnyfromcanada 2 years ago
Have you seen Andy Thomsons 2009 speech?
Its also on youtube. "andy thompson why do we believe in gods".
Hirnlego999 2 years ago 6
Hes got a long Q and A. Thats good :)
TAFBCHS 2 years ago 9
I once read that belief in the afterlife is a subconcious biproduct which stems from sleep.
Every day of our lives we sleep and then wake from that sleep.
It's very easy for some people to make the mistake of seeing death as the same as sleep. That we will wake from it.
We may spend 80 years on this earth sleeping and waking. It's difficult for humans to get our heads around the idea that death unlike sleep, is permanent.
RationalConclusion 2 years ago 7
I like that the audience challenged him quite a bit in the questions and answers section
KitsuneVoss 2 years ago 2
Me too. But a bit too many "hey here's an exception".. those of course exist.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
I really don't like his nose breathing.
maulcs 2 years ago
he doesn't like yours, either.
astat1 2 years ago 6
Hah? Haha?
maulcs 2 years ago
1. He says these men who committed jihad were almost all "mentally healthy", saying nothing of the sort about the women, seeming to imply that the women instead were mentally deranged.
2. He then says the women all (especially) had to deal with loss and abuse (again implying mental disorder?)-- but did he mention that these women come from regions infamous for abuse against women, where it's a high statistical probability?
It's like trying to prove genetics w/ assertion laced w/ patriarchy.
ptocologist 2 years ago
3. However, it's arguable that women who have little left to lose are more likely to commit jihad, but the same must also be true of men, though men are perhaps less predisposed to talk about their feelings of loss b/c of patriarchal expectations to "act tough". I feel this makes the comment about how jihad happens predominantly in occupied regions very cogent. People in occupied territories have less to lose, and their families more to gain, from jihad. Is it desperation more than genetics?
ptocologist 2 years ago
4. I wish he would have spoken of female bonding coalition violence. There are plenty of examples of this-- to name just one, the highly popular all-female Bōsōzoku gangs of Japan and the Sukeban (distinctly). Other commenters are right to see strong bias in the presentation.
5. He disempowers the idea of jihad as a destructive cultural meme by trying to pin the blame on genetics too much. I agree there is a genetic predisposition, but this overemphasis makes his message a bit fatalistic.
ptocologist 2 years ago
I know this is such a silly comment for such a thought-provoking talk but... I LOVE Richard Dawkins' tie! <3
AtheistBrit 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Here speaches the man that has never been there, never seen it happen and never experienced the world he's talking about.
Rimber6 2 years ago
first class talk!
thanks for uploading
JivinforFun 2 years ago 4
Richard Dawkins is such a lovely guy.
gavbag1234 2 years ago 7
...has there every been a mass atrocity that wasn't belief based in motivation? However keep in mind that none but ourselves shall emancipate our own minds; therefore I remind us all that it is only by example that the subjectgated shall understand enough to desire to set themselves free. Least we forget & become tempted by our own feelings to try & force our ways of none belief based thinking on those that have been forced to remain in belief based decision making practices. Peace out comrades
docatomics 2 years ago 3
haha..every minute hes saying probably..come on stop talking about things without knoiwledge??please
samirifidibus 2 years ago
You cant talk about suicide terrorism as if there is only one type of person in every case. of course he is only going to say probably all the time, because statistically speaking, they are PROBABLY represented by a particular group.
RabidPelican 2 years ago
in fact they arent...who told you (i mean his opinion) that every bombing is represented by the same group..he is doing nothing but fear...i cant hear it anymore..since 2001 every day, talian, islam,hisbollah an so on...but nobody brings you 100%proof..they want the people to hate a religion not a murder...sorry my englisch is not tha good...
samirifidibus 2 years ago
No I think it was just extreem nationalism.
fuckapotomis 2 years ago
0:01:36
I just love his tie :)
matyldziok 2 years ago
Hmm september 11 and the other terrorist bombings were against civilians. The kamikazes were during war and were tragetting US military personel not civilians. I dont know if thats comparable.
chrisshwada 2 years ago
Yes, I think they are, they are both for a purpose, to achieve something.
Nocturnuz 2 years ago
I don't think he mentioned terrorism when comparing them, just called the suicide attacks. His work is not so much about "terrorism" but the mentality of people who conduct suicide attacks.
Nimatzo 2 years ago
I agree, kamikaze is a bit different. I don't condone war, but I understand it's rules. Kamikazes were engaged in war with their enemy, taking out as many as they could on their way down. They weren't murdering innocent people because they were fooled into believing that virgins await them.
Nanolithic 2 years ago
This video is sexist. WTF.
marktrade88 2 years ago
Sometimes the facts are not politically-correct.
voltagedrop 2 years ago
I suspect that marktrade88 was refering to the portrayal of the facts.
Dr Thompson said that women kill themselves for non-selfish reasons, while men do it for 'their own' reasons.
I think killing yourself to get members of your family into heaven is an unselfish (if stoopid) reason.
The speaker had certain biases that influenced his interpretations.
sirskeptic 2 years ago 3
I doubt that women are less selfish in any way. I think selfish is a word that represents failure. If someone thinks you are selfish then that means that you have failed to affect that person to give to you, where 'give' is meant in a very broad sense. You haven't been smart enough, not used tact and finesse correctly, if you are seen as selfish.
drandersw 2 years ago 3
Yes, that's my point. ANYTHING can be called selfish.
Giving your money to the poor can be called selfish. (a tax dodge, to make yourself feel better, to be condescending etc.) Likewise linking suicide to selfishness for one sex and not the other is most likely a bias in interpretation as opposed to "politically-correct fact".
sirskeptic 2 years ago 3
If you really think hard about why you do the things you do then I am sure most are kind of selfish but that is okay because a market economy works really well.
If I would send all my money to some charity anonymously and never tell anyone about it then that would not be selfish but it ain't gonna happen.
drandersw 2 years ago
I think there is still a case for selfishness there.
I think you're giving all your money away to make yourself feel superior, and impose your influence over another group.
Talk about selfish! :)
sirskeptic 2 years ago 2
Selfish gene rules.
drandersw 2 years ago
I don't understand what your last sentence means. Are you intending to dispute the claim made in the video, that there is a gender difference in what can motivate a suicide bombing?
ananiasacts 2 years ago
There are lots of reasons to commit suicide; clinical depression, brain washing, extreem-end manipulation for the powerless, believing that you can do more good with your death than with your life.
I think that both sexes have the access to the same motivations (probably in different %).
I dispute that the males are selfish and the females are not.
sirskeptic 2 years ago 3
It makes a lot of sense to me as a consequence of our different reproductive strategies. A woman's mind had better be a great deal more concerned with rearing her children because that's her only option for reproduction. Without that chance there is little reason to live. A man's mind is more appropriately concerned with being top dog so that more women will want to have his kids. Even it it costs your life, if it makes your brother more attractive then the selective pressure is still there.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
My oldest son drives my car. I have no problem giving all my money away to my sons. I guess natural selection rendered me with this coding in the brain.
drandersw 2 years ago
a fantastic essay by Roy F. Baumeister explains the sex differences stemming from reproductive differences.
One section deals with risk taking behaviour and self protection. Basically: a female can realistically have about 10 kids, but she must remain healthy and safe, consistantly. There is no reproductive reward in taking risks.
For a man taking a big risk, and winning means he can have 10 kids that week just on the fleeting fame.
He goes into more depth but you get the idea.
sirskeptic 2 years ago
I could take 20 risks in a week, before, in principle.
I guess men were also needed to fetch food so we got to live long enough to do that. This got me thinking about pros and cons with being a risk taker versus a food fetcher.
drandersw 2 years ago
I think you're misrepresenting his lecture. He said he based his data on the terrorist attacks/suicide attacks that he has studied. These studies have led him to make generalizations about the gender dynamics in the attacks, but he's not saying that it applies to all such attacks. Generally speaking, he states, women commit such atrocities b/c of victimization of some sort, while the men who do it tend to come from regular, even affluent and stable, backgrounds.
LadyD224 2 years ago
There were a bunch of things that he said in his lecture that together indicate his bias - it was picked up and argued with by several audience members.
He said that he though women were less violent than men, while others suggest that they are just as violent when it means no damage to themselves.
It is the self-protection mandated by reproductive strategies that means you need a mentally damaged woman to blow herself up.
sirskeptic 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
ptocologist 2 years ago
In my opinion, it is as much against self-protection for women as it is with men. Men and women can be burdensome on their families just as much.
I find it less convincing that jihad is a genetic tendency to root out burdensome family members than it is that jihad is a meme that propagates itself.
ptocologist 2 years ago
You misunderstand me. There are dozens of biological systems in place the make women put their safety in front of everything else. They have more surface pain receptors, lower tolerance for adrenaline, lessened risk taking behaviour, lower muscle mass etc.
By self-protection I was talking about our genetic hardwiring.
sirskeptic 2 years ago 3
If sexism is defined as not treating men and women as if they were psychologically identical then all reasonable people are sexist.
They key is not to treat men and women as if they were clones with different genitals (babies are NOT blank slates, gender behavioral differences are in many cases instinctual) but to not treat one gender as if it were lesser than another and to not retaliate against a given individual who does not conform to the gender norm.
LynxChan 2 years ago 2
Suppose it turns out that our genome and utility to society are tightly correlated in an easily measured way. What is the fair reaction to that predicament? Should we attempt to redress the injustice of birth with, for example, tax rates designed to engineer a parity of economic and social opportunity? (In a perfectly fair world, and all other things being equal, should a smart person have an advantage over morons for no other reason than that they are smart?)
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Hmm, that's a difficult question to answer. I assume you mean that an individuals usefulness would be easy to gauge at birth (or, as in a modern Brave New World, we were genetically best disposed to given tasks). I think society would have to make a (non-trivial) balance between favoring individuals that better advance the whole of society and fairness towards individuals who can contribute somewhat less. However I think that it's pretty clear we aren't so clear cut; nurture does count a lot.
LynxChan 2 years ago
Personally I find more worrisome the possibility that a study would show certain correlations of aptitudes for a given GROUP over another. Imagine the most explosive; People of a given race being found to be more intelligent.
I in NO WAY trust governments to treat such information with the nuance, delicacy and understanding of statistics it would need. More likely whole groups would be written off as lesser. This puts the such studies in quite an ethical bind, given their potential consequences.
LynxChan 2 years ago
"nurture does count a lot"
But then we have the data from identical twin studies that show they are more alike when raised apart.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
men and women are different get over it
alexwm22 2 years ago
haha I have the 666th rating
3stonwa 2 years ago
me too, perhaps we're both satan! Hooray!!
ndoublea05 2 years ago 2
Wow. Amazing lecture. When the research is done, at the end of the day the answer is obvious. But so much of it would be hard to grasp without proper research.
HannuMarijarvi 2 years ago 2
Wow. Sam Harris' talk of selflessness-meditation, eliminating us/them tribalistic thinking and labels, has never seemed so important.
sam51092 2 years ago 2
Love Andy Thomson, awesome physchology Doctor.
MysteryManoLove 2 years ago
I don't like the term 'Bright' I'm a realist, those who stupidly follow religion are fantasists. Rationalist or critical thinker would also do as good descriptions as we oppose the ridiculous irrationality and confused thinking that the superstitious and religious rely on.
alien8ted 2 years ago 6
Do you people just keep these rants on a template of some description and just paste it in to any YouTube video which touches on religion? I don't know why you bother, all people ever see are the deranged ramblings of a religious fanatic. Try posting something relevant, and perhaps more original. Spouting the same thing we've heard a million times before just wont work.
monkeymox 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Great vid, view my channel and be my friend. Thank you.
Take care.
FreeTrafficSystems 2 years ago
Nuts!
Zoiros85 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the Brights movement is so stupid. i know you're trying to follow the example of the gay community, by choosing a positive-sounding name, but you chose a name that sounds like it IS the gay community.
TheWiseCommenter 2 years ago
I don't agree...BUT I don't like the name Brights either because because to me it sounds SO condescending...
It says, "We're smart and the rest of humanity isn't."
I don't like mass movements that invite them/us thinking...and I'm not a fan of condescension either.
2bsirius 2 years ago 4
Best video i watched today on this youtube. five Stars. Keep up the good work.
CiphersSon 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
What did the man say at the end?
About homosexuals?
YouKnowWhereThisEnds 2 years ago
At the end, the lady thinks its the mother teaching the violence, not a patriarchy.
but she fails to have done research past anechdotal evidence.
Religion breeds women under harsh parents, mother and father, and those girls grow up to be harsh mothers themselves, mimicking the ways they were raised.
Religion teaches not just the father to be listened to, but the mother is also not to be questioned and taught to be harsh.
With father gone, the mother rules the house over the females.
waltermh111 2 years ago
If it's unfair of xtians to compare us to nazis, it's unfair of AAI to compare us to World War soldiers.
onlyAerik 2 years ago
-Brilliant
ubermons 2 years ago
Why is Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan being bombed to the stone-age, when every single suicide bomber seems to come from the Saudi Arabia?
ydyammo 2 years ago 4
I think he was off on his views regarding women and violence. It seems to ignore trends which show that in cultures where women are increasingly given equal treatment culturally the numbers regarding violence begin to even out between the sexes (increase in female gangs, etc). The non-violence among women most likely comes from cultural influence rather than genetic. If he wants to trace it back, murderous envy violence occurs between female apes as well; for instance infant murder for revenge.
Elivagara 2 years ago
I woul argue under-reporting in cultures where violence to women is more common :)
mrproper07 2 years ago
I believe that perhaps he's trying to propose that there is an alternative to basic thinking such as what you have stated.
OreWaZero 2 years ago
Sure isnt happening that way in america.
Our women have great freedoms, wheres your stats showing they are as violent as men?
I am not seeing it in my daily life either and I am around as many women as anything.
I know very independent feminists and they still dont match the men around them in acceptance of aggression despite their bad attitudes.
Our women also kill their children, whoopdidoo, we arent saying they cant do violence, but we are talking about stats.
waltermh111 2 years ago
Yes, there is murderous envy among female apes, but that only further supports his point that the source of these violent acts is very different between the two genders. In fact, he spends about 20 minutes demonstrating the difference in motivation between the genders in humans and non-humans. Did you actually watch the whole lecture? You are right that there is a large cultural component to it, but the basis for the restraint in violence towards women is undeniably biological.
generaleskimo 2 years ago
The matriarchal idea was poor. Remember why men are violent? Because violence gets the women. Nobody should be so naive to think that women are saints. If they marry the violent men they approve it or even encourage it. Leaders arent violent themselves. They order other people to be violent. So getting a less violent leader doesnt improve the situation if she is just as likely to order others to violence. Gender isnt the issue its the type of leadership the system creates.
Darvinisti 2 years ago 4
Darvinisti - good one - you only have to look at Monty Python's life of brian when they very astutely point out the women's violent nature by making the entire audience for a stoning made up of women pretending to be men. Utterly hilarious, but scarily accurate. Women are violent and like you say, women who marry violent men are just perpetuating the problem.
alittlebitofperil 2 years ago
Like the idea of teaching children about the psychology of religion and dogmas in general. Scepticism should be tought at elementary level. Children deal with lies and bending of facts everyday so they really can relate to it.
Darvinisti 2 years ago 4
The problem is, people don't want children with critical thinking skills. The last thing you want when you tell your child he's being naughty is an argument on the definition and underlying assumptions regarding 'naughtiness'. Not that I don't think children should be taught those skills lol.
monkeymox 2 years ago 5
That is not the last thing I want. I would want my children to correct me if my teachings were baseless. I would love to teach my children about what naughtiness is. I belive that when people understand why good behaviour is good they are more likely to behave good. The idea itself will encourage people to act right beyond the authority. Parents wont be around always but ideas can be.
Darvinisti 2 years ago 5