Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 41 posts

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#21

Post by nabla9 »

juskrey wrote: post #11
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #8

My understanding is that although The Selfish Gene is undeniably brilliant, it's somewhat dated (which figures). In particular I believe most modern evolutionary biologists don't put quite as much emphasis on the gene as the unit of evolutionary selection, the way Dawkins done. Can anyone suggest a 'spiritual sequel'? Or am I just mistaken? Edit I was surprised to see Daniel C Dennett in the list. Having those two ch…

"Selfish gene" notion was debunked by Novak et al. Also Taleb extensively writes in his books about how this contradicts evolution.

The Novak et al. paper was heavily rebutted.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/03/researchers-challeng...

http://ped.fas.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature09836.pdf

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#22

Post by mnyary »

nabla9 wrote: post #20
sarosh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012), the entomologist E. O. Wilson contends that although the selfish-gene approach was accepted "until 2010 [when] Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita, and I demonstrated that inclusive fitness theory, often called kin selection theory, is both mathematically and biologically incorrect."[35] Chapter 18 of The Social Conquest of Earth describes the deficiencies of kin selection and outline…

Wilson's approach is widely rejected. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/03/researchers-challeng...

It is widely rejected by many, and widely shared by many. This is an open scientific debate. Both sides have strong arguments.

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#25

Post by theoh »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #8

My understanding is that although The Selfish Gene is undeniably brilliant, it's somewhat dated (which figures). In particular I believe most modern evolutionary biologists don't put quite as much emphasis on the gene as the unit of evolutionary selection, the way Dawkins done. Can anyone suggest a 'spiritual sequel'? Or am I just mistaken? Edit I was surprised to see Daniel C Dennett in the list. Having those two ch…

It's only a pity if you can't be bothered to Google "pinker dennett" and find multiple recordings of the pair in conversation.

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#26

Post by no_news_is »

matnessme wrote: post #2

Here is a "commentable" copy of the sheet. (also easier to make a copy of) http://bit.do/pinker-fav-books

Thanks, that was a step towards what I would have liked to see. Here's the same link without the url shortner.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1__tGAYP6BNRVMKW6oJBj...

Not sure if this link will work without going through the proper method, but here's a direct XLSX download link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1__tGAYP6BNRVMKW6oJBj...

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#27

Post by empath75 »

trukterious wrote: post #23

I read Dawkins before Darwin, which made sense. Just as, if I wanted to learn relativity, I wouldn't go to Einstein's papers first.

They’re actually fairly readable as an introduction. Remember they were written for an audience for whom this was a radically new idea.

http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1...

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#28

Post by tptacek »

holowire wrote: post #18
FabHK wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't give much stock in what Taleb writes about anything except options trading. Can you give a more specific reference to Novak et al.? I don't think the "Selfish Gene" has been "debunked", and find no reference to Novak eg at Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolutio...

> I wouldn't give much stock in what Taleb writes about anything except options trading. Why do you say that? I’m broadly familiar with Taleb’s writing, but have yet to fully read any of his books. So I’m curious of your perspective here and what is informing that sentiment.

He's a gadfly, not a scientist writing to popularize a field he actually does work in. (With the plausible exception of options trading).

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#29

Post by throwaway837914 »

jamesrcole wrote: post #19
sarosh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012), the entomologist E. O. Wilson contends that although the selfish-gene approach was accepted "until 2010 [when] Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita, and I demonstrated that inclusive fitness theory, often called kin selection theory, is both mathematically and biologically incorrect."[35] Chapter 18 of The Social Conquest of Earth describes the deficiencies of kin selection and outline…

You can read Dawkins' response to it here http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/edward-wilson-soc... This part is worth noting: I would not venture such strong criticism of a great scientist were I not in good company. The Wilson thesis is based on a 2010 paper that he published jointly with two mathematicians, Martin Nowak and Corina Tarnita. When this paper appeared in Nature it provoked very strong criticism…

FWIW this response is an appeal to authority.

I was in a closely related field, and I'm familiar with the work of Cosmides, Tooby, Pinker and a few others. I also knew their students and saw how the sausage is made.

In my experience, Wilson is right. Many of these labs were not doing science. They were doing advocacy, and it showed in the way they designed studies and shelved data.

Not long after I was in school, major labs pushing this approach at Harvard and Yale had major data manipulation scandals.

Independently of this, they also had an animus against statistics that I don't think is befitting of an empirical science.

I haven't read the Wilson, Nowak, and Tarnita paper so I can't comment on it.

But from what I saw of this camp, I would be very skeptical of an appeal to authority.

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#30

Post by hsitz »

wodenokoto wrote: post #4
adamnemecek wrote: post #3

Most of these are a bit pop sciency. Idk why people say they like Lolita.

You could argue that Pinker too is a pop-science writer.

Well, it would be extraordinarily difficult to argue that he is only, or even primarily, a pop-science writer. If you take a look at his CV you see that he is clearly an expert in his field with plenty of work directed at scientific audience:

https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/cv_steven_pinker...

Post reply on HN