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

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#31

Post by throwaway837914 »

nabla9 wrote: post #21
juskrey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

The nature paper is not a rebuttal, it just says "hey look we did some studies, didn't they read those studies? We studied lots of things and came to conclusions."

There's no modeling of the Wilson argument that is then proven to be wrong.

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#32

Post by claytoneast »

tptacek wrote: post #28
holowire wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Do you think his central thesises around Black Swan events, tail risks, hedging, and skin-in-the-game principle for evaluating advice/statements, are not relevant to scopes beyond options trading?

Note, I am not stating he is not a gadfly. He is, absolutely. But is he wrong?

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#33

Post by tptacek »

claytoneast wrote: post #32
tptacek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you think his central thesises around Black Swan events, tail risks, hedging, and skin-in-the-game principle for evaluating advice/statements, are not relevant to scopes beyond options trading? Note, I am not stating he is not a gadfly. He is, absolutely. But is he wrong?

I'd take him about as seriously as I take Wikipedia. Sometimes useful. Follow links to sources, evaluate those.

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#34

Post by MaxBarraclough »

theoh wrote: post #25
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.

You can spare me the snark next time, but thanks. I'd assumed it didn't exist as, from what I can tell, Dennett isn't usually one for that kind of thing.

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#35

Post by AceyMan »

tptacek wrote: post #28
holowire wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Whether he's truly a gladly or not, you have to appreciate a guy who's self-aware enough about such opinions that he listed this quip first on the back cover of his latest book (from memory, mind you) —

>The trouble with Taleb isn't that he's an asshole—he is an asshole. The trouble with Taleb is that he is right.

Love that!

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#36

Post by nabla9 »

mnyary wrote: post #22
nabla9 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> widely shared by many.

That's not accurate description of the status of the debate.

Some share it, but nothing seems to have been come of it after the debate.

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#37

Post by jamesrcole »

throwaway837914 wrote: post #29
jamesrcole wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, maj…

> FWIW this response is an appeal to authority.

The bit I quoted is, and it's not trying to hide the fact. It's saying these prominent researchers disagree with the paper. I don't see any problem with that.

But that's just one part of his response, and the rest isn't just an appeal to authority.

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#38

Post by FabHK »

throwaway837914 wrote: post #29
jamesrcole wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, maj…

FWIW, the author of the quoted paper addresses the "appeal to authority" in the very next paragraph:

> I’m reminded of the old Punch cartoon where a mother beams down on a military parade and proudly exclaims, “There’s my boy, he’s the only one in step.” Is Wilson the only evolutionary biologist in step? Scientists dislike arguing from authority, so perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned the 140 dissenting authorities. But one can make a good case that the 2010 paper would never have been published in Nature had it been submitted anonymously and subjected to ordinary peer-review, bereft of the massively authoritative name of Edward O Wilson. If it was authority that got the paper published, there is poetic justice in deploying authority in reply.

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#39

Post by theoh »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #34
theoh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can spare me the snark next time, but thanks. I'd assumed it didn't exist as, from what I can tell, Dennett isn't usually one for that kind of thing.

I try not to be snarky, but only because it invites downvotes. Your "pity" comment came across as sententious.

What do you mean by "that kind of thing"? Searching for " conversation with Daniel dennett" returns more appearances, on podcasts, with Dawkins, with W.V.O. Quine, with Sam Harris. Dennett is a big self-promoter even by the standards of academic celebrities.

Dennett and Pinker are both massively overrated and past their sell-by dates IMO. But instead of having a substantive discussion that might enrich this thread you seem to be intent on low-effort idle speculation about what kinds of public appearance Dennett might or might not be keen on. It is exasperating.

Re: Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations

#40

Post by MaxBarraclough »

theoh wrote: post #39
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can spare me the snark next time, but thanks. I'd assumed it didn't exist as, from what I can tell, Dennett isn't usually one for that kind of thing.

I try not to be snarky, but only because it invites downvotes. Your "pity" comment came across as sententious. What do you mean by "that kind of thing"? Searching for " conversation with Daniel dennett" returns more appearances, on podcasts, with Dawkins, with W.V.O. Quine, with Sam Harris. Dennett is a big self-promoter even by the standards of academic celebrities. Dennett and Pinker are both massively overrated an…

You're right, he's more publicly active than I'd thought.

Now to find a good video of him fighting it out over his 'multiple drafts' theory of mind.

Post reply on HN