I've been beaten a lot growing up, I never slapped someone once I went past the age of 10. I've been lied to a lot, vowed to myself to never lie, and ended up lying almost never. I've wittnessed strong resistance to self reflect in my parents, and one of my favourite pass times is to think abt my thinking.

@jraelien5798

28 күн бұрын

Agreed. Sometimes our revulsion in reaction to our parents behavior encourages us to grow past those flaws in ourselves. Pinker would never discount that fact. What he observes is merely the vast majority of humans. Not everyone.

EVOLUTION OR CHANGE IS CONSTANT.

YOUR GENOME IS CHANGING CONSTANTLY.

Very good video, I got a "bad" mark for pointing out to sociologists that they need to account for the genetic confounders in their "studies", because in a few years, noone will accept their findings if they don't account for that.

@nancygerette

Ай бұрын

Like Pinker, you have decided to ignore the huge problem in the field of "behavioral genetics" (the latest term for sociobiology) know as the " missing heritability problem." Pinker is a weasel - what is your excuse?

Greate! Please continue to share dear mister Pinker your wisdom with us.

Thanks, our professor

Excellent presentation, so interesting!

Super inspiring! Thank you Steve!

Fascinating!

Super happy I came across your channel! You are a world-class science communicator, sir, and the world is better off with you putting a podcast out there. One thing I wanted to comment on about law 3: The data input for twins, despite them being figuratively (or sometimes almost literally) tied-at-the-hip for their formative years, is a massively different set of sensory streams. Every moment each person is taking in data that is hugely different in terms of 3d space, background visuals, where sound comes from, etc. Just being two feet apart on a couch is a wildly different experience between those two people despite the seemingly small spatial distance between them. It is no wonder that even two humans who share the same DNA can be so different - even conjoined twins, who still have separate viewpoints on the world and will always experience everything differently simply because there are two brains and two sets of eyes and two sets of ears that will never experience the world from the other's perspective because it would require their heads to perfectly overlap in 3d physical space, lol.

I wonder if there isn't another factor that could contribute to the behavioral or personality differences between identical twins. That is, each other. If one displays certain interests or tendencies, the other might try a different or opposite path motivated by a will to establish himself as a separate character. So, for instance, say they both have tendencies to be considerate, one might decide to be brusquer. The way this difference would affect the feedback they get from other people could establish divergent personality traits. (?) Nice suit, by the way, Steven! Jermyn st collar & the small-patterned tie whose darker colour matches the jacket suits you.

@mach7479

28 күн бұрын

This is interesting - and I tend to agree - it highlights the actual differences in environment, but it seems difficult to test for

“Nature, nurture, heaven, and home. Sum of all and by them driven.” -MJK The Humbling River

0:07 "Please Sir, can I have some more?"

Dear Steven, e-motive intelligence, yes it is chance BUT I believe it is individual experience and more importantly how our psyches interpret that experience which affects our outlooks/personalities. Surely as a psychologist you re-cognise the benefits of therapy's recursive analysis and that REM sleep affects interpretation, coalesces 'wholly' spirit and 'soul' in a psyche; where the Grecian word psyche meant soul, the core 'id' of being and id-entity.

“Empiricism” by philosopher David Hume. What individual twin saw and experienced each day’s which contributed to his personality. Unless, there was a conjoined twins then their personality may be similarly to each other as both shared every moment of experiences in their lives together.

My sister has two half-sisters that were raised by their dad. My sister did not meet them until she was in her twenties. Watching the three of them together was like watching triplets. They moved and talked so much alike it was hard to remember which was my sister.

Great stuff, but Pinker you gotta get rid of the intro where it says "the genius steven pinker" it's really bad optics. Please just trust me.

@sulljoh1

Ай бұрын

I didn't see it

@Olsonic

Ай бұрын

If Pinker isn't a genius, the term is meaningless.

@samuellblake

Ай бұрын

I agree he is, but it looks bad to say it.

@conradorocha9558

Ай бұрын

@@sulljoh1neither did I

@conradorocha9558

Ай бұрын

@@sulljoh1now I just heard it… it’s the ad in the middle that says that

Many years ago, just by coincidence and geography, I worked at a college where the academic bookstore was managed by the identical twin of the owner of a magazine shop where I shopped. One gay, one straight, twin brothers. I have seen patterns (which might be confirmation bias or just patting myself on the head) more along the line that everyone tries to make a different mistake from their parents - mom was strict, I will not be - but not when it comes to children of smokers taking up smoking. Addictive biology overcomes behavioural mirroring? That is my best guess.

The third law seems to me to be related to the notion of enaction. Our cognition is inactive; it has a history in which it has been dynamically coupled with the world in a unique fashion.

In the development of character (personality, if you like) there's also a role for inward thought and contemplation, of all parts of life the most invisible, least measurable. Imagine the identical twins once again, this time playing chess against the same opponent, one after the other. The opponent may try for the sake of experiment to play the same game twice. But the attempt will fail, because the twins will never think or play identically. Now think of the twins' lives as an endless series of chess matches - stretching the category to include even deciding what to have for dinner - a major factor in each game being each twin's particular thoughts. Even a few minutes' reflection on a single occasion can potentially alter a personality and a life forever.

NURTURE IS PART OF NATURE.

AND FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION.

… and Robert Sapolsky perspective that there’s no free will… but if you have experiences, values, preferences, access to options/opportunities, information/education it seems you do have some autonomy to at least decide in a game of would you rather? 🍬🍒🥑🍌

I've bn reading How the Mind Works by U, sir. I'm about to finish Chapter 4 The Mind's Eye. Whaterer u said is there in the book. I'm ur fan, pls share ur decisive thoghts on Synchronicity. Hv u experienced it?

Reminded me of Sapolsky… no free will.

@charlieangkor8649

29 күн бұрын

Sapolsky can do audio.

Some random personality differences may be a result of differing childhood gut bacterial biomes or virus exposures.

The real dilemma of the question, is that we can't get past it. As someone who was not nurtured to any large degree, I learned everything by making mistakes along the way. I've never had a role model, a hero to look up to, or stayed with any religion for any length of time. I believe that exercise and healthy dopamine levels was what got me through, and I learned to accept those who refused me from my upbringing to the current day with forgiveness and love. I agree with psychology to the point where it let's you forgive yourself for your own past wrongdoings, and allows for one to go on 'the road less traveled' to quote the book. With forgiveness and understanding, one can build their life from one of turmoil into one of legacy.

@bitofwizdomb7266

Ай бұрын

Are you non religious ? Spiritual? What do you attribute your learned expression of compassion and forgiveness to ?

@campbellpaul

Ай бұрын

@@bitofwizdomb7266 I'm neither at this point, but sought both emphatically in the past. The key, I found, was learning to forgive myself for my past wrongdoings. If God could forgive me, why not myself? Second, it was writing down all of my past sins on paper, and personally reading them aloud to a minister. This is essentially the 'fourth step' of 12 step programs. This made me realize that I was merely a person like everyone else, with the same weaknesses and foibles. The third thing was pretty strange to me, as I could never figure out why, but my mother's passing liberated me from about 85% of my inner anger which I didn't realize was about her. After that, it was time, and realizing so many people suffered internally in ways I did not see or know, allowing me to enjoy things in life with a new family for the first time. I honestly hope you can glean something from this.

@bitofwizdomb7266

Ай бұрын

@@campbellpaul happy to hear you realized you were self responsible and accountable for the thoughts you think , the words you speak and the actions you engage in. Most people never learn to live consciously/mindfully. They blame everything and everyone around them instead . People don’t realize that they create their own “Heaven or hell” by their choices and actions. It’s all the intricate interplay of cause and effect and you have experienced it first hand . Taking the courage to forgive yourself was pivotal and realizing how anger ruled your life both consciously and subconsciously, no doubt . You probably had a profound realization of how it all works and it connected you to a deeper sense of presence 👍🏻 Living a life that steers away from deception and betrayal and that champions honesty, truthfulness, respectfulness , fairness and being just , and treating people with decency and dignity sets you on a path to a virtuous life where wisdom abounds. You’d enjoy learning Buddhist psychology and philosophy . I am not Buddhist (nor religious whatsoever) . But Buddhism is all about mind science and cause and effect . My background is in psychology and philosophy. I’ve studied it for yrs and yrs . Keep on truckin!

Interesting. Two things seem left out. 1) How does one so casually discard culture? He expounds repeatedly on how studies of separated twins prove the primacy of genetics. And, versus family, that seems true. But then he off-hand admits that these were all twins who remained in the same cultural context. In other words, we have no reason to believe that genes trump culture. 2) I appreciate acknowledging the huge role of chance in our development. However, there's not a word about the drive to distinguish ourselves from and/or compliment the traits of those around us. It's as teenagers, that I've seen twins make the most effort to distinguish themselves from each other, i.e. at the same time they are individuating from parents. Or, note how, in long-term relationships, nothing clarifies (and often entrenches) the differences in couples--i.e. couples who initially seemed so ideally similar--as simply living together over time. What do you think?

It's hard to see that there's so much that was determined. The universe maybe be deterministic after all

@_BMS_

Ай бұрын

This is different from determinism. By far most genes -- especially ones that influence behavior characteristics -- do _not_ work in a deterministic fashion. They rather impart certain leanings and make one thing more likely than another.

For my artificial neural network if I feed it with 10 times bigger corpus it will become significantly better at language.

In sum, what we have always known, that having children is a risky enterprise because you don't know what you will get.

Thank you for this wonderful presentation. On the other hand, you have forgotten the parameter that is more important than chance in the construction of personality, which is what David Deutsch talks about: the creation of knowledge and explanations. Humans are universal explainers and universal constructors. We can understand the difference between 2 identical twins raised the same. Their ideas, their memes may differ.

In my case, I am who I am because of willpower. Years ago I found tools to shape a new brain, a new me, so I got to work. Still a work in progress, but a better man, father, brother, son and friend than I used to be. So, is willpower, or stubbornness if you will, nature or nurture? 🤔 Was I able to keep going when life crushed me, because I was stubborn? Or did the crushing horror of my life life teach me how to never quit? ✌️💚🖖

What I find equal parts interesting and frustrating is that even nowadays psychotherapists and psychiatrists are extremely keen to ignore human nature to rather look back in the person's history and construct narratives that often serve to cast the client as 'the victim' and emphasize their lack of agency. This sort of construction of narratives also often serves -- even in mental health services -- as an entry point to categorizing clients into 'victims' or 'genuine' sets on the one hand, and 'perpetrators' or 'undeserving' of service input on the other -- most of these latter ones are usually clients with what psychiatry regards as 'personality disorders'. Both perpetrator and victim narratives are missed opportunities, where a closer look at enhancing a person's understanding of themselves in terms of their nature is avoided, a clearer awareness of which could at least help modify future behavior.

I´m reading Troubled by Rob Henderson. He claims that living in a family is extremely important for almost everything. Is he wrong in blaming living in a family and should he rather blame the genes from the families of kids with bad families?

I don't discount the influence of Genetics and family/culture, but I think every person has the capacity to choose their own way of thinking and beliefs above what is nature. > Thank you Mr Pinker :)

@hardheadjarhead

Ай бұрын

I hear that argument from some Christians when it comes to homosexuality. They think you can choose your sexual orientation. Another way of looking at it is to suggest that a person digging in to a belief system, say a conspiracy theory, and refusing to submit the compelling evidence to the contrary, is “choosing” his belief system. It may simply be that he is so smitten with cognitive errors, and his ego is so dependent upon the conspiracy belief, that he can do nothing other than believe in it. he has less agency than he thinks he has. Choice is often an illusion.

Bad audio. Huge difference between loudness of the jingle and the talk. Cannot understand first words while listening in the night without cranking up the volume so high that it a) wakes sleeping neighbours up b) gives me hearing damage. Also, after the video finishes, if there is another jingle it will blow my speakers out, and if not, the next video will blow my speakers out.

Maybe a Law of human development is Money and Materialism.... How an individual reacts to Wealth Accrual, i.e., Capitalism or Not is a massive distinguisher.

What about prescription/over-the-counter/illegal drugs, alcohol, lead and other harmful chemicals? Don't these make a huge difference under the 'randomness' explanation? That means EXPECTING PARENTS NEED to AVOID DRUGS and ALCOHOL. These substances contain a ton of side effects that can potentially be passed down to their kids. I agree with Dr. Pinker. I always believed that genetics is a TOP determining factor regarding many subjects - more so than environmental factors.

Same DNA, same upbringing, but different souls?😮

This is such a hard topic. When you think of how people obtain skills, you might think if genetics may give some advantages over other. It could be upbringing, but upbringing is not always guaranteed either. A talkative family might have a talkative young person that chooses to participate in the talkativeness or maybe not. So, the choice the individual makes matter. This might be a choice that is not conscious, like when a baby makes a choice. Still that choice and subsequent habituation, makes it so they continue to be as they are. Personally, I think a lot of what we cknsider to be signs of intelligence and brightness might be overrated. Who says that playing a musical instrument is any better than some tribalpeople learning to knit? The musical instrument is more prestigious, but is it really. And you might say, well, the instruments require reading music, which js true, but really all activities are just made of individual small activities that get places together. Is that truly complex? If I memorize 1,000 processes that add up to 1 super skill, why is that better than someone learning multiple skills with less processes each? Or any other combination. Most of what we consider intelligent people as doing (like reading, playing instruments) are skills that are placed upon young people, but not really something special. They're just another activity. I don't even believe in intelligence as it is clearly defined. Intelligence exists, but it's not necessarily what society says it is. Inventing, speaking original thoughts, writing original thoughts, are all signs of upper level intelligence, in my view, but most humans dont do this. Like less that 3% of people may, are actually intelligent and many are not in positions of power. Most humans might be intelligent, but most choose not to pursue higher levels of creating, so it doesn't happen. Learning to write or speak on demand, requires years of practice and requires the mind to be making mistakes as it learns kore and more and most adults dont want to go through that failure process. As for people being born intelligence, I think about 80% of pepple are within the normal range of intelligence. Genes could encode something that makes someone more likely to be aggressive, but how do we know that thst "aggressive" energy can't be transformed to aggressive kindness? The difference between humans and animals, is that humans can make decisions that affect how they use their feelings inside. So, the temperament might be strongly for one way, but the person themselves can choose go act on it, or transform it, or choose to not take any action, while still feeling the strong emotions. So, yes nature is a starting off point, but but your own choice and the environment might play a role too. Maybe a bit of all three, instead of one or the other. I just think the human mind is malleable and can probably transform to other things, even if it has a propensity for one thing. Anyway, thanks Stephen Pinker

@axle.student

Ай бұрын

"So, yes nature is a starting off point, but but your own choice and the environment might play a role too. Maybe a bit of all three, instead of one or the other. I just think the human mind is malleable and can probably transform to other things, even if it has a propensity for one thing." I am in agreement with this. We are capable of becoming more than the some of our parts (genes, experience (nurture/culture)). With education we have the ability to break away from what the world has made us and become according to our own thoughts, beliefs and will. I am who I choose to be :)

@_BMS_

Ай бұрын

@@axle.student That choices matter is a moot point. It is self-evident that they do. What causes those choices to be made is the much deeper question. And that is what Pinker is driving at here. The absence or presence of a sense of agency is constructed by our brains with genetic and environmental help. How it all fits together and comes about is a much more interesting question than moral outrage over the very obvious absence of free will. Also remember that morality serves an extremely important function in social cohesion and organization. Of course, we need to punish murderers. But, it becomes more complicated if the person that murdered another is found to have a large tumor in his head. The narratives we construct change our attitudes to the circumstances. But, how does that come about? All really interesting questions. Moral outrage just puts a stop to pursuing them further.

@axle.student

Ай бұрын

@@_BMS_ "That choices matter is a moot point. It is self-evident that they do." I disagree with this, most of the population are taught to habitually be reactive to the external environment rather that be self determined. Although this "determined" by external environment may appear common, it is not natural. It is set by societies and individuals either accidentally or by conscious choice. > Nature vs. Nurture has a lot more components than is stated in this very short video. It is far more complex than that. I was a little surprised that Steven didn't touch on some of the other aspects. (Rule 3?) > But, how does that come about? Education and personal choice. The keyword is "Choice" and informed choice relies upon an education which is constructive toward making that choice. The world controls the education and thoughts of most people. The world sets who you are. Is this what we should want? To be controlled in what we think or who we are? Personally I choose to determine for myself who I am and what I believe. > "Moral outrage just puts a stop to pursuing them further." I don't know what "Moral outrage" has to do with anything?

@_BMS_

Ай бұрын

@@axle.student Choices are obviously important. I am choosing to write this comment, which has consequences [albeit in a very limited way.] The point about morality is that people feel offended that their 'conscious choice' and the feeling of 'freedom' and 'agency' that comes with it, dissolves on closer inspection into factors that are far removed from freedom. And being told this makes most of us recoil and make counterclaims in an attempt to reaffirm and rescue the concept of 'free will.' 'Law No. 3' does not bring free will in by the back door. It simply states that in accounting for factors that could explain phenotypic variance, family environment plus genes do not suffice. This leaves epigenetic factors, peer group, and random life events. It's important that what Pinker means by 'behavioural traits' are measured by personality assessment tests.

@axle.student

Ай бұрын

@@_BMS_ Well, I guess you are still not getting them message. Unlike Steven Pinker and yourself I firmly believe in free will. No one is ever going to convince me otherwise on that point :)

Without nature there is no nurture. They are one and the same. At the root of much of humanity's discontent find false dichotomy as a driver.

@danielpaulson8838

Ай бұрын

They're one and the same, you say? Yikes. Nature gives you DNA and different human brain types. Nurture grows our core mental conditioning. An introvert that is well raised will be well adjusted, and if poorly raised will be poorly adjusted. But the introvert nature stays the same. The nurture did not. Same? Not even. Think it through.

Love the video's, but I'm sure you get a couple more clichés into the intro if you really tried.

Sincere question: I may well be naive but, how does a code for proteins (DNA) determine our basic personality type? Could there be something else transmitted via the sperm/egg->zygote? Epigenetic?

@ALavin-en1kr

Ай бұрын

When you leave consciousness, intelligence and mind out of it and base it all on biology; the elemental, you encounter these problems which are unanswerable at the level of biology.

Nature vs. Nurture: What's More Impactful? --- Chance.

there is no vrs its a dance

Explain why attachment theory is one of the most robust theories in developmental psychology.

What's my genes say, I'm doomed huh?

@nancygerette

Ай бұрын

No - Pinker is hawking sociobiology and does not care what the science actually says - that's why he misuses the term "heritability" - Google "The heritability fallacy."

The genius Steven Pinker did not inherit the modesty gene.

@nancygerette

Ай бұрын

And he's not a genius. He's a political operative and a charlatan.

@bradsillasen1972

Ай бұрын

@@nancygerette Google the Dunning Kruger Effect. That tells you all you need to know.

@EmperorsNewWardrobe

Ай бұрын

@@nancygerettego on. Why?

@mee834

Ай бұрын

Is that what's wrong here? Lack of modesty? Modesty is nice when it is genuine, but false modesty is just annoying so faking it will only leed to even worse optics. Some people are humble by nature. Others are humbled by nature. Repeated failures in life force us to be if not modest then at least humbled. Pinker is a succesful scientist who deserve to be proud of his achievements in life. Can you point to something specific he has said or done that you think shows a lack of modesty?

@danielpaulson8838

Ай бұрын

It's an ad from the sponsor. I think someone did a great job telling us about them self. Eh? Pinker didn't call himself that.

Pinker and heritability studies make a major mistake in proclaiming differing "families" and differing "environments." Twins are not raised in different families, at least in the ways that will really tease at the genetic differences. Talking about genetic influences on sexuality and gender, an actually different family would be one, for example, that is single sexed. That is, a set of DNA could be raised in a single sex environment with no imagery or knowledge about two sexes of any animal, including humans. That is the kind of family difference that you would need to really begin teasing at genetic differences in behavior. This is true for every behavior and identity marker. We *can* create societies that would create robust selves from the same DNA that would be radically different from each other. Pinker (et al) are poor at imagining the infinite kinds of environments we can create. We choose our own identities, at least we choose for the next line of selves. DNA/proteins are behaviorally cheap. Our social conceptions of sexuality come from linguistic adults, raised in a two-sexed environment. Whatever our genes are doing it will be more like pheromones. It will be cheap. As reflective beings, we need to smile and shrug at cheap manipulations of behavior. We can literally organize that behavior in any way. That is, any trait of meaningfulness to our self models can be undone by radically altering the environment. An environment that we have control over. Our social world has been a haphazard creation. We can radically alter it. Genes are not stopping us. Only our choosing is what stops us. I call for demilitarization and a UBI. Educate everyone deeply. Expansive world models expand our self models. By expanding our knowledge of the world, including biology, we understand our own selves better. Biologists "see" cellular components beneath the bark of the tree. Many of us, just see bark. Complex language is what makes us human.

Nature vs Nurture reduces everything to biology. Consciousness (the hard problem) Mind, Reason. These belong to philosophy and psychology disciplines, so why is biology alone center stage? Hopefully this will change at some point. It would be good if more is known in relation to consciousness (the hard problem) and mind, before trans humanism appears on the scene. Human life and flourishing from the perspective of consciousness and mind or from the perspective of biology? Either taken alone is a problem. We need a science of the human that combines both as they are combined in reality. Idealism leads to ideologies and biology alone is too reductive, and sociobiology is too reductive. Either one being extrapolated as encompassing the nature of the human is not the way to go. That is why a religious perspective is necessary; humanity in relation to the cosmos. We cannot understand ourselves without understanding our relationship to our home, the cosmos. A worm’s eye view is not enough, we need a bird’s eye view of reality and of our place in it, before technology decides it for us. Tech should remain our tool, we should never become its tool; no embedding of technology in humans as has been proposed with trans humanism.

@ALavin-en1kr

27 күн бұрын

Another point I do not want an atheist positing what reality is as consciousness and mind are perceived to have arisen from elements which I cannot, from a rational perspective, be on board with.

I don't think Mr. Pinker really knows what he is talking about. Genes and families are only two criteria. The effects of families are not zero by the time one is an adult, as he states. He is wrong to say that people find his statement "mind-boggling," it's more likely that they find it ridiculous, but it's interesting that he interprets people's response by explaining his rationale behind it. Then he brings up studies of identical and fraternal twins to make his point, which he already has admitted that the studies are somewhat ambiguous. This is not news, that children growing up in the same home develop different personalities. The landscape of human development is much more complicated than he makes it out to be. Law 3 is important and verifiable, but, again, it's naive of him to think that people have trouble wrapping their head around that idea. Huge ego.

You and Dawkins are doing these YT channels and they seem (I'm sorry to say) low effort. That's unfortunate because your books are so thoughtful.

@brianbutton6346

Ай бұрын

I have not watched any of Dawkins but . . . it's a different medium and, I suspect, a different audience. I think that someone who was inclined to read, say, The Blank Slate a couple of time would feel like these were the shallow end of the pool. But less initiated might get much more out of them. I am deeply grateful that I don't have to connect with a modern audience in these forums; I doubt I could figure it out.

Is education then largely meaningless?

Steven Pinker, "Denying Human Nature" An Accusation. Extremely Small Percentage of Humans Don't Believe they are an Animal of Earth's Nature. So a Poor Attempt by Professor Pinker to Isolate Evolution Disbelievers Who Know They are Earth Animals. "Nature verses Nuture" Impossible, No Such Thing as a Pure Nature Human or Pure Nuture Human. Plus Claims "Steven Pinker the Genius". I Need to See More Evidence before I Agree with this.

According to *checks notes* Steven Pinker, education has zero effect on a person, so this video is pointless.