Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations(docs.google.com)
docs.google.com
Spreadsheet of Steven Pinker’s book recommendations
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQDca1iI1GgcMwBl65XRvJaAnZOv6sCjmAamy_7cioVMV4U_VnBksgZrIKTe5P4aneEXtion1ZA7iPe/pubhtml#
40 comments
I recently re-read it and didn't find it dated. I suppose if you've taken in its lessons, then it over-emphasises its point a bit, but consider that (as Pinker points out) "its main point still needs to be made 40+ years later. Most journalists, psychologists, and intellectuals commenting on natural selection still write as if it acts for the good of the group or the species, without even realizing they have said anything problematic or contentious."
Also, the stuff on evolutionary stable strategies is very insightful and lucidly explained.
Also, the stuff on evolutionary stable strategies is very insightful and lucidly explained.
What unit of selection other then the gene is there?
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 outlines group selection, which Wilson argues is a more realistic model of social evolution. He criticises earlier approaches to social evolution, saying: "...unwarranted faith in the central role of kinship in social evolution has led to the reversal of the usual order in which biological research is conducted. The proven best way in evolutionary biology, as in most of science, is to define a problem arising during empirical research, then select or devise the theory that is needed to solve it. Almost all research in inclusive-fitness theory has been the opposite: hypothesize the key roles of kinship and kin selection, then look for evidence to test that hypothesis." According to Wilson: "People must have a tribe...Experiments conducted over many years by social psychologists have revealed how swiftly and decisively people divide into groups, and then discriminate in favor of the one to which they belong." (pp. 57, 59) According to Wilson: "Different parts of the brain have evolved by group selection to create groupishness." (p. 61)
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#Units_of_sele...
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 from more than 140 evolutionary biologists, including a majority of the most distinguished workers in the field. They include Alan Grafen, David Queller, Jerry Coyne, Richard Michod, Eric Charnov, Nick Barton, Alex Kacelnik, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, Geoffrey Parker, Steven Pinker, Paul Sherman, Tim Clutton-Brock, Paul Harvey, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, Stephen Emlen, Malte Andersson, Stuart West, Richard Wrangham, Bernard Crespi, Robert Trivers and many others. These may not all be household names but let me assure you they know what they are talking about in the relevant fields.
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 from more than 140 evolutionary biologists, including a majority of the most distinguished workers in the field. They include Alan Grafen, David Queller, Jerry Coyne, Richard Michod, Eric Charnov, Nick Barton, Alex Kacelnik, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, Geoffrey Parker, Steven Pinker, Paul Sherman, Tim Clutton-Brock, Paul Harvey, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, Stephen Emlen, Malte Andersson, Stuart West, Richard Wrangham, Bernard Crespi, Robert Trivers and many others. These may not all be household names but let me assure you they know what they are talking about in the relevant fields.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
Wilson's approach is widely rejected.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/03/researchers-challeng...
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/03/researchers-challeng...
From the article:
The critics argue that Nowak and his colleagues make an unwarranted distinction between inclusive fitness and natural selection theory, and assert that inclusive fitness has been quite valuable. They stress that inclusive fitness ideas have helped yield insights into many biological phenomena, such as why social insects have skewed sex ratios. "Their announcement of the demise of inclusive fitness is wrong," says STRI's William Wcislo. "They've done a service in a sense: [Their paper] forced people to again rethink something, and it's quite clear that the evidence in favor of Hamilton's theory is quite convincing."
The critics argue that Nowak and his colleagues make an unwarranted distinction between inclusive fitness and natural selection theory, and assert that inclusive fitness has been quite valuable. They stress that inclusive fitness ideas have helped yield insights into many biological phenomena, such as why social insects have skewed sex ratios. "Their announcement of the demise of inclusive fitness is wrong," says STRI's William Wcislo. "They've done a service in a sense: [Their paper] forced people to again rethink something, and it's quite clear that the evidence in favor of Hamilton's theory is quite convincing."
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.
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.
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.
Now to find a good video of him fighting it out over his 'multiple drafts' theory of mind.
"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
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.
There's no modeling of the Wilson argument that is then proven to be wrong.
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...
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 think this refers to Nowak et al and I assume refers to the discussion mentioned in the Wikipedia article of the book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#Units_of_sele...).
> 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.
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!
>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!
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?
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.
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...
http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1...
Wonderfull! If only he added dates of release. Some of them are maybe truly timeless - but still.
Most of these are a bit pop sciency. Idk why people say they like Lolita.
He includes a link explaining why he likes Lolita. The only reason you don't know is because you didn't click the link and try to learn.
Or is "idk" your considered reply to the 7 page review?
Or is "idk" your considered reply to the 7 page review?
> Idk why people say they like Lolita.
Why not read the pdf Pinker linked to then [0]. It's a very interesting psycho-analysis of a fictional character.
[0] https://www.dropbox.com/s/3y1c9mbe8x1v51y/Brown%20Lolita%20R...
Why not read the pdf Pinker linked to then [0]. It's a very interesting psycho-analysis of a fictional character.
[0] https://www.dropbox.com/s/3y1c9mbe8x1v51y/Brown%20Lolita%20R...
You could argue that Pinker too is a pop-science writer.
Unless you have training and experience in the specific topic area, you probably won’t get much out of a “real” science book. We all need pop science.
(There’s good and bad pop science, of course, just as with anything else.)
(There’s good and bad pop science, of course, just as with anything else.)
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...
https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/cv_steven_pinker...
There's an annotated version of Lolita that might help you understand its richness [1].
FWIW, Wikipedia states (with source) that "Many authors consider it the greatest novel of the 20th century".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-679-7272...
FWIW, Wikipedia states (with source) that "Many authors consider it the greatest novel of the 20th century".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-679-7272...
Here is a "commentable" copy of the sheet.
(also easier to make a copy of)
http://bit.do/pinker-fav-books
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...
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...
For me there's a giant green orb covering the bottom right quadrant of the screen. I didn't investigate it.
Why the non-https URL shortener?
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 chew things over would make for an awesome podcast. Pity.