4 ms·

In a world of endless moronic grifters, Yuval is one of the least of my concerns. You’d do better than 99% by adopting the ideals of a Professor of History who

In a world of endless moronic grifters, Yuval is one of the least of my concerns. You’d do better than 99% by adopting the ideals of a Professor of History who is a reasonable centrist and understands the value of spreading the topic of Sapiens and Homo Deus into a wider understanding, as opposed to yet another textbook.

Khelavaster 3y ago
Yuval would trick you into dramatically under appreciating the capacity of machine analysis, genetics, statistics, and much more. We have far more power to do effective and good things than Yuval gives us credit for.
soganess 3y ago
After reading both his big books and seeing a few interviews, I am left with the sense that he is just a new spin on the old ceremony. Example: He has a positive view on the gender gains of the last 100 years and a broad definition of gender in the future[1], but still believes in gender essentialist stuff [2]. If forced, I'd rather people adopt his views over those of others, so you are right there. But the bones of his arguments are the same ones we've heard for ages repackaged with an affect of intelligence that is agreeable to modern sensibilities. As an aside, regardless of whether you believe in gender essentialism or not, having someone talking out of both sides of an argument doesn't instill a ton of confidence that the individual has considered the interplay of their arguments. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqiXae9eLPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqiXae9eLPY [2]: https://youtu.be/TYAKHLrr51w?t=128 https://youtu.be/TYAKHLrr51w?t=128
- alecst 3y ago
  How can you expect him to answer a question about a major historical difference between men and women across all known societies… without out talking about the essential differences between men and women? Curious how you would have answered.
  - tovej 3y ago
    Bio-esentialism and gender essentialism is not about "essential differences" as in "distinct and considerable", but about the idea of your biological gender being solely responsible for determining a persons psychological and social attributes. It's a simplistic point of view that does not consider the sociological aspects of gender contributing to gendered outcomes.
    - alecst 3y ago
      The very point of the question was to address a gender difference that's independent of any specific society. The phrasing was: "spatially across the world, and temporally throughout history." He then talks about innate differences in animals which leads to matriarchal societies (he claims in elephants and bonobos.) Then speculates that there may be a similar distinction in humans. How do you find this simplistic? How is this "gender essentialism"?
      - tovej 3y ago
        It's gender essentialism because he makes a foregone conclusion that "there will be static gender differences across cultures" and then he implies that they are unavoidable and due to innate gender factors. He looks at an outcome, and then draws a conclusion about the mechanism behind the outcome which supports his position. He does this without proposing an experiment to verify his hypothesis about the mechanisms. Just finding a correlation with gender says nothing about any "innate mechanism".
        rafaelero 3y ago
        It's his opinion based on his reading of the science, lol. And a reasonable one with which I mostly agree. If you think you have a better theory that explains gender differences, by all means, tell the world! But don't vilify people who have different outlooks over the data.
        tovej 3y ago
- achrono 3y ago
  Well, is != ought. So the recognition of gender essences a la Simon Baron-Cohen is not incompatible with striving to minimize those changes. We may stumble along the way, and it may prove to be a fool's errand, but in principle this is not impossible to achieve.

Khelavaster 3y ago

Yuval would trick you into dramatically under appreciating the capacity of machine analysis, genetics, statistics, and much more. We have far more power to do effective and good things than Yuval gives us credit for.

soganess 3y ago

After reading both his big books and seeing a few interviews, I am left with the sense that he is just a new spin on the old ceremony. Example: He has a positive view on the gender gains of the last 100 years and a broad definition of gender in the future[1], but still believes in gender essentialist stuff [2]. If forced, I'd rather people adopt his views over those of others, so you are right there. But the bones of his arguments are the same ones we've heard for ages repackaged with an affect of intelligence that is agreeable to modern sensibilities. As an aside, regardless of whether you believe in gender essentialism or not, having someone talking out of both sides of an argument doesn't instill a ton of confidence that the individual has considered the interplay of their arguments. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqiXae9eLPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqiXae9eLPY [2]: https://youtu.be/TYAKHLrr51w?t=128 https://youtu.be/TYAKHLrr51w?t=128

alecst 3y ago
How can you expect him to answer a question about a major historical difference between men and women across all known societies… without out talking about the essential differences between men and women? Curious how you would have answered.
- tovej 3y ago
  Bio-esentialism and gender essentialism is not about "essential differences" as in "distinct and considerable", but about the idea of your biological gender being solely responsible for determining a persons psychological and social attributes. It's a simplistic point of view that does not consider the sociological aspects of gender contributing to gendered outcomes.
  - alecst 3y ago
    The very point of the question was to address a gender difference that's independent of any specific society. The phrasing was: "spatially across the world, and temporally throughout history." He then talks about innate differences in animals which leads to matriarchal societies (he claims in elephants and bonobos.) Then speculates that there may be a similar distinction in humans. How do you find this simplistic? How is this "gender essentialism"?
    - tovej 3y ago
      It's gender essentialism because he makes a foregone conclusion that "there will be static gender differences across cultures" and then he implies that they are unavoidable and due to innate gender factors. He looks at an outcome, and then draws a conclusion about the mechanism behind the outcome which supports his position. He does this without proposing an experiment to verify his hypothesis about the mechanisms. Just finding a correlation with gender says nothing about any "innate mechanism".
      - rafaelero 3y ago
        It's his opinion based on his reading of the science, lol. And a reasonable one with which I mostly agree. If you think you have a better theory that explains gender differences, by all means, tell the world! But don't vilify people who have different outlooks over the data.
        tovej 3y ago
achrono 3y ago
Well, is != ought. So the recognition of gender essences a la Simon Baron-Cohen is not incompatible with striving to minimize those changes. We may stumble along the way, and it may prove to be a fool's errand, but in principle this is not impossible to achieve.