Does anyone realise how good of a memory this guy has? He always gets asked the most random questions and the guy replies with names, dates, information about the event and his take on it. Always amazing.

@tertiary7

5 жыл бұрын

He seems to remember everything he's ever read, or at least the key takeaways and relevant quotes, and contextualize it. When asked, he can reference things in understandable and relatable language.. encouraging the listener to go off and research themselves and never take his word for it. One of the greats.

@marcch03

5 жыл бұрын

@Gondwana: I had the same thought. It seems to me that he has like the brain of a savant :) In combination with a lot of processing power.. His knowledge is immense - and he can access and express it impressively well.

@theheathbar123

2 жыл бұрын

I like his warning against abandoning a whole theory just because of some new bit of data, but couldn't that, in some cases, cause a lot of stalling in the progress of science? In fact it's particularly relevant to Chomsky because, as I understand it, what launched his career, and is still central to it, was his critique of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior and his serious challenging of behaviorism as a whole. He was in effect calling for behaviorism to be abandoned, because he and his colleagues saw a lot of evidence against it. Skinner effectively did what Chomsky describes in this video, holding to his theory and trying to make the evidence fit with it. Am I missing a subtle point from Chomsky?

@michaeldebellis4202

Жыл бұрын

I agree. I was listening to one of his interviews a while ago and the topic veered to something incredibly obscure like “14th century French literature” and Chomsky started rattling off names of authors and papers and books by scholars. He’s also incredibly nice for someone so brilliant. Several years ago I sent him an email about some half baked ideas I have based on work on ethics by some of his students like Marc Hauser. I expected to get no reply or at best something from his secretary like “Professor Chomsky appreciates your interest, unfortunately he is too busy…” Not only did he reply but in detail and he corrected some errors I made and gave me suggestions for others to contact and papers to read. I also admire the way he never makes cheap attacks against people who disagree with him, even when those people ridicule him without understanding his ideas. That’s one thing I realized, I never really had the math background to understand his linguistics ideas until I studied computer science. Not programming but things like Turing and Gödel’s work on the theory of computation which Chomsky’s work is based on.

"Uranus. The PLANET Unranus." lol

Interviewer interrupting too much uselessly.

@michaeldebellis4202

6 жыл бұрын

I was thinking the exact same thing. The other guy is just throwing in his own opinions rather than really engaging with Chomsky. I don't think the interviewer really understands what Chomsky is saying.

@michaeldebellis4202

6 жыл бұрын

Still, when the other guy shuts up it's great to here Chomsky. I've heard him say most of this before but always as a few footnotes or tangents to some other topic, never go into it in this much detail. I think I find the interviewer so annoying because I would love to be where he was. I would be asking Chomsky for examples of how the social sciences are different. I'm pretty sure he's referring to examples such as people who criticize UG by saying some HG tribe's language doesn't have recursion, but a good interviewer would be asking him to drill down into things like that, be specific about how the two disciplines differ.

@andrewstat6764

4 жыл бұрын

The audio is not very good either. But still interesting.

Brilliant.

Nice! Super listenable! :D

Is there a guy in the CIA who spends his days adding a ton of noise to Chomsky video and degrading their sound quality so we can't understand a word he says

Sorry I couldn't make out the name mentioned at 3:28, does anyone know who it was?

@John-rj9bg

6 жыл бұрын

Angus Trout Many thanks

@thomasdobrzeniecki1154

6 жыл бұрын

They are talking about Jules Henri Poincaré, a French scientist.

He’s so still

@koreanjaefish

2 жыл бұрын

He’s especially still here but not by much

Why is the sound quality so ridiculously terrible in this video?

The interviewer kept interrupting him, that's so annoying.

The sound quality is terrible.

Where was this recorded? It seems like a recording in a restaurant and I wonder if Chomsky was aware it was being recorded?

@duxnihilo

6 жыл бұрын

V12F1Demon He seems to be. Look how he was able to hold still for the entirety of the video.

@V12F1Demon

6 жыл бұрын

Dux Nihilo that's a brilliant observation! Was just thinking aloud since the context of the recording is worth noting.

@coreycox2345

6 жыл бұрын

Standing in front of a cactus. I wonder if he is in Tucson in this photo?

@tertiary7

5 жыл бұрын

he's also mastered ventriloquism in his later years

@HussainFilm

4 жыл бұрын

link to the original recording is in the description of the video.

How the fuck does he know all this? Just how?

@toddtrimble2555

Жыл бұрын

A lot of what they're discussing is very well-known, not at all obscure, so someone like Chomsky who is generally aware of key points in the history of science will be acquainted with it, for example the discovery of Neptune, and key players in the development of relativity theory. (But it's true that Chomsky has a remarkable memory.)

We are in the image of God; communication. That's what makes us like God. We communicate. Great communicator sir.

The host is so annoying!

Yes, scientists often suppress or ignore counter-examples when it conflicts with their agenda. Like how Chomsky ignores the endless failures of socialism. Funny, that. Still, hearing about how quantum mechanics allowed physics and chemistry to be unified was fascinating.

@FreekinEkin2

5 жыл бұрын

Christ... this must be a troll for sure because Chomsky has directly addressed the failures of so-called "socialism" HUNDREDS of times. He has demonstrated, with textual evidence from Lenin himself, that the Soviet Union and other "socialist" states were actually state capitalist and called themselves "socialist" as part of their propaganda and public relations strategies, much like the so-called "Democratic" Republic of North Korea.

@solank7620

5 жыл бұрын

Koopy Sandwich Chomsky has spoken well of socialist regimes and dictators like Hugo Chavez in the past. If by socialism you mean worker owned co-ops, those are only possible in a free market via consent, and nobody is against consensual stuff. They are against state seizures, state control of the means of production. Not free choice and contracts. Worker owned co-ops creates by coercion would inevitably be state capitalist in practice, because their existence comes from state coercion. The bureaucrats would really be in charge. They’d also never work long term because they’d be inherently political and redistribution based rather than merit based. And workers don’t actually have any interest whatsoever in sharing losses and the liability for debts. Most businesses fail after a few years. Suffering net losses after years of business ownership is common. Most people have no desire to put themselves out there like that. Whatever your definition of socialism is, it is either a proven failure, destined to fail, or a free market co op that nobody opposes.

@Pubhooligan74

5 жыл бұрын

Koopy Sandwich You fail to realise that most of the businesses in the USSR were democratic worker office

@solank7620

5 жыл бұрын

Rashford The GOAT Well...that’s a damn polite way of saying it I guess, LOL. Soviet councils were deeply corrupt and dictatorial. These weren’t people who had incentives to improve product quality to serve public demand or lose customers to rival businesses, or to treat employees better or those employees would get stolen by competitors. These bureaucrats rode around in limos while most workers were very poor by western standards. But much worse than that was the immense political power they had. Political power inequality is far, far more dangerous than wealth inequality. Because power bought through gold, is not the same as power *taken* by the sword. Power through wealth is power through consent. Political power is power through coercion. Soviet Party officials could totally destroy the lives of everyday citizens on a fucking whim. Levrentiy Beria would ride around the city in his limo, and have his bodyguards abduct random young girls off the street so he could rape them. He did this to *hundreds* of girls - some shockingly young. He also forced the wives of political prisoners to have sex with him to save their husbands. He was also a serial killer - the bodies of many young women were found at his home years later. Stalin and politburo knew all about his mass rape (though probably not the serial killing). And they did absolutely nothing because Stalin found him useful. To call the Soviet councils “drmocratic” is a slur on democracy. These things were corrupt and vile.

@Pubhooligan74

5 жыл бұрын

Solan K Formal nomination for candidates in fact took place at worker’s collectives meetings, and candidates were judged on by their personal qualities and background. Most of what you said about sexual assault has nothing to do with the Soviet Union’s democracy, B Zinoviev, Kamenev, Pyatakov, Radek, Tomsky, Bukharin and many others much loved by the Western bourgeois press used the positions entrusted to them by the Soviet people and party to steal money from the state, in order to enable enemies of socialism to use that money for the purposes of sabotage and in their fight against socialist society in the Soviet Union. Between 1918 and 1920 an epidemic of Spanish flu caused the death of 20 million people in the US and Europe, but nobody accused the governments of these countries of killing their own citizens. The fact is that there was nothing these government could do in the face of epidemics of this kind. It was only with the development of penicillin during the second world war, that it became possible for such epidemics to be effectively contained. This did not become generally available until towards the end of the 1940s. The Soviet famine was caused by a drought that happened in other countries as well that weren’t under the government’s control. The rich Russian peasant, the kulak, had subjected poor peasants for hundreds of years to boundless oppression and unbridled exploitation. Of the 120 million peasants in 1927, the 10 million kulaks lived in luxury while the remaining 110 million lived in poverty. Before the revolution they had lived in the most abject poverty. The wealth of the kulaks was based on the badly-paid labour of the poor peasants. When the poor peasants began to join together in collective farms, the main source of kulak wealth disappeared. But the kulaks did not give up. They tried to restore exploitation by use of famine. Groups of armed kulaks attacked collective farms, killed poor peasants and party workers, set fire to the fields and killed working animals. Yet despite this worker’s living and quality of life increased exponentially under Stalin Managers achieved reinstatement at their factories through organisations that constituted part of the state apparatus and wielded state power, worked also had control over pay rates, production norms, classification, safety in the job etc.