Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
Why Pinker is trash: Takes unwarranted conclusions of mutation, drift, reconciliatory dance between gene and environment and justifies it as self evidentially JUST.
Its the Neo-divination of the Elite.
"[Pinker] told me he had met some amazing people there, like Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, the former secretaries of state to Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, respectively. He seemed to enjoy both the absurdity of the experience and its purpose – [to comingle the powerful]."
1/2
"In the the eyes of his critics, this stance has made Pinker the world’s most prominent defender of the status quo. At a time of rising inequality and ecological catastrophe, his prescription for the world is to do basically the same thing we have been doing."
Yeah, that'll do it.
Thats narcissism, essentially. The status quo oligarchy rules as a consequence of <adaptation and competition> and therefore the justification of inequity, injustice etc is self-evidenced.
Old cis het white guys ALWAYS gravitate toward this direction if you tell them their farts dont stink.
Always.
And that is truer than any abstracted Darwinist conclusion Pinker can try to draw about the Oligarchy.
3/end.
@hannu_ikonen
A perfect definition of arrogance - their think their farts don’t stink.
@hannu_ikonen A thought provoking thread. Quite suitable analysis of Pinker, a writer and thinker I have admired.
@hannu_ikonen Proud to say I’ve known he was trash since circa 1991. Nature simply doesn’t present “continuity” in the way conservatives want it to, need it to.
@goodthinking @hannu_ikonen I'll be honest, anyone using 'nature' as a justification on any side of an argument is probably going to have issues. Natural is not really a thing, everything is weird and contradictory, and constantly changing, etc.
Of course it sounds like he's doing social darwinism forces darwinism, so that's crazy on top of crazy ( and Darwin was wrong to start with, assuming natural variation was subservient to mutation).
@Oggie @hannu_ikonen I always understood population separation was the catalyst for variation, at the hands of constant mutation. It’s been awhile, and I plead old.
Trying to graft such a thing onto genetics seemed… anthropocentrically convenient.
@goodthinking @hannu_ikonen To be fair it's been a while for me too, but the crux was that mutation was the vector for all changes, with population separation being what enabled minor mutations to be a factor. He just didn't think that this 'family' of breeding true slightly longer beaks was something that would arise absent significant mutation. Discounting minor variations meant that his theories were predicated on massive changes.
Basically mutation is a much lower factor than gene spread.
#TheLanguageInstinct was a #GoodRead, I won't deny that I enjoyed #IT; however, by #HowTheMindWorks, he was already beginning to #LoseHisFocus
#OpinionsWillVary; #IT's #WhatTheyDo...
Let's see if we can't get #JustinBimblebottom to #JoinUs... Just for the #ShitsAndGiggles
Then we can have #Pie
| 
