Robin Hanson made the mistake of thinking that TED Talks were about presenting novel and insightful ideas. No, they're about giving the audience a false sense of knowledge and sophistication without having to do all the hard work of studying the subject themselves.
"which level of signalling are you on" "one maybe two" "you're like a baby, watch this" What if he pretended to pretend to pretend to give people a false sense of knowledge, pretended to pretend to promote his book, pretended to signal that he as a researcher is more high status than them, and in reality just needed an excuse to get out of NYC on that particular day?
Why do you think it was a mistake? Perhaps the mistake was yours when you thought that about TED Talks. I know exactly what you're talking about, I have seen hundreds of these things, been to two TEDxs before I got bored with the concept. But I wouldn't make that general statement about the audience. I used to think I went off the format because it didn't result in the group taking action. I had thoughts of creating an "After TED" complementary event, where the audience, all fired-up, upper-middle class wealth, could convene in a few seminars and come up with some proactive actions that responded to the calls to action implicit in the talks. Then I realised that that would work only if most of the audience agreed with the speaker, and that not all the talks had calls to action, they were simply interesting. For all that the audience is more likely to be liberals, it is not a political rally. What's wrong with a bunch of people wanting to get a quick version of some interesting topics? What sane person would want to attempt to become a polymath if they didn't have the brain for it? Which is what you are suggesting the audience should do, I assume - go off and actually get degree-level understanding of *every* talk they watch for them to not be considered shallow dilettantes. Is that what you are suggesting? If you have that criticism of TED talks, how do you feel about good journalism? good documentaries? They are both short summaries of complex and deep topics, designed to be digested by non-experts for their personal edification. Are they also to be sneered at? Why are you watching it?
I think they are aware. excerpt from the book: "In case it's not clear by now, this chapter helps explain Kevin and Robin's "hidden'' motives for writing and publishing this book. To put it baldly, we want to impress you; we're seeking prestige." (page 166, subtitle "the elephant in the book").
Robin Hanson is probably the greatest reductionist thinker in all human history. He may not get the recognition today but if humanity is still there (and he is working on trying to improve our changes, god bless Robin) he will be remembered with likes of Aristotle, Newton and Einstein. No joke. Newton, Einstein or Plato (although he had some ideas) never discovered signaling in such explicit form. They were too busy signaling intelligence through physics or philosophy to know what they were even doing. Of course he worked on other's shoulders, like Michael Spence.
i wrote this comment to signal that i am open to questioning my previously held assumptions about how people operate in the social realm. also used all lowercase letters cos it’s “cool”
4:03 laughter has to do with either Novelty, or stress reduction (such as in social situations). Im fairly confident those are the two over arching reasons behind all laughter.
I'm listening to him speak on Sam Harris' podcast and he punctuates his sentences with little laughs in the same way. There's a live audience in that case too, but I'm inclined to believe that it's just his manner of expressing himself. I definitely agree that it appears nervous but I'm not convinced that it actually is. It might just be a persona he uses for presenting ideas that he knows are challenging so that it's more palatable. Or maybe something else entirely idk
The emergence of the _anti-hero_ in much recent fiction suggests that there's a real hunger for the insights that a book like The Elephant In The Brain dispenses. Would it be unduly optimistic to predict that a majority of the population would welcome these findings? I'd like to see some RCTs with the goal of discovering just how prevalent these *"yay anti-heroes / boo ideal heroes"* attitudes are. Those types of findings should have implications for the broader topic.
SavHub he is perfectly on with this point. People aren't interested in health, which is mainly influenced by exercise and nutrition. Give people what they pretend they want.
Dale The guy has some interesting points. I do think medicine point is off the mark... of course there aren't high correlates with medicine and health (medicine implies poor health). We don't really 'pretend' to want good medicine. All of his other points resonate, I just don't understand what he is getting at with medicine
This could be translated (interpreted as analogous), with a little goodwill, to the theoretical framework of the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Also, the philosophical question of whether one can say anything about ideology or if you cant because you yourself is affected by ideology (Mannheim paradox) is very interesting. If anyone can say anything half intelligent about it, I would be glad to hear it. It is a question I am struggling with in my studies as a social scientist - whats the point if the science is not able to be self-referentially consistent? The same cunundrum is posed by Clifford Geertz. He called it "Sphinx's Riddle".
@@yashyadav9397 Ah, because we dont understand anything, people can have their livelyhood predicated on the reassurances that they will make us understand something some day?
Not exactly but also yes. Basically the motives behind “ why “ are never the motives we agree to out loud to others. An example is the reason why I am responding is because deep down it feels good to respond and feel like I know what I’m talking about (even if I MAYBE don’t) but I responded anyways in hopes the be right. The motive that everyone else sees is that “I am helping by explaining”. And the secret elephant in the brain motive is that maybe I don’t care at all about helping but rather just responding. Crazy.
"Actually only about 20% of laughs are caused by a joke" maybe for you, as 80% of your laughs seem to be spontaneous and erroneous, why are you laughing between every sentence?
First there was Sperry, who, in fact, discovered the effect of the "two hemispheres" and justly earned the Nobel Prize for it. Then there was his student Michael S. Gazzaniga, who not so much cut and watched but mostly badly philosophized in the book Who's in Charge? The epigraph to this book is worth a lot! However, starting from about page 86, he starts quickly forgetting what he claimed before. Then came Robin Hanson with his elephants, which are a pale reflection not only of Sperry, but of Gazzaniga as well. The question remains the same: how can professionals who discovered the left hemisphere interpreter, can so easily stop halfway, fall into such primitive traps and tell such nonsense? Mr. Robin Hanson, to remain polite with you, I will only note that everything you say is at least trivial. But you should have known the history of this issue.
This was not trivial at all at the time when it was discovered. Very few top intellectuals seem to understand the status games on intellectual level; if they did there would be less demonizing and less playing status games. Sure nothing is new in art and literature but these ideas were never said in such explicit form. Internet has changed all this because cultural evolution happens so fast.
Please don't let the republicans see this! There goes affordable health care. If someone gets sick, just give them a hug. It's just as good as neurosurgery.
