in

Heather rips into anti-scientific Guardian review (from Livestream #98)

Clip taken from DarkHorse Podcast Livestream #98 (originally streamed live on September 25, 2021): https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/EvoLens98:2

Q&A: https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/EvoLensQandA98:e

References:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/sep/24/a-hunter-gatherers-guide-to-the-21st-century-review-sciencey-self-help

Amazon reviews of the book:
https://www.amazon.com/charts/2021-09-19/mostsold/nonfiction/ref=dp_chrtbg_dbs_1

The Jim Rutt Show:
https://jimruttshow.blubrry.net

What is this a clip from?
In this 98th in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), discuss the state of the world though an evolutionary lens. Find more from us on Bret’s website (https://bretweinstein.net) or Heather’s website (http://heatherheying.com).

Heather’s newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox): https://naturalselections.substack.com

A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century is now available: https://huntergatherersguide.com/

DarkHorse merchandise now available at: http://store.darkhorsepodcast.org/

Become a member of the DarkHorse Livestreams, and get access to an additional Q&A livestream every month. Join at Heather’s Patreon.
https://www.patreon.com/heatherheying

Like this content? Subscribe to the channel, like this video, follow us on twitter (@BretWeinstein, @HeatherEHeying), and consider helping us out by contributing to either of our Patreons or Bret’s Paypal.
https://www.patreon.com/bretweinstein

Theme Music: Thank you to Martin Molin of Wintergatan for providing us the rights to use their excellent music.

Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. Culture has to be genetic at the fundamental level.
    That has to be axiomatic, surely.

    I remember Dawkins saying that soldiers should never exist in evolutionary terms, because they often die, but that has to be wrong. A super-fit super-dominant male is likely to attract top-line females, and as long has he dies in battle after siring three children, the culture of warfare will be genetically propagated. Same with any other successful cultural traits.

    R.

  2. I really appreciate the questions you put forward and your mindful efforts to answer them. Never thought I'd see the day liberal journalism would take on university professors. Maybe we are post apocalyptic, and I've missed something. Keep humble; keep thinking.

  3. Human adaption and intelligence, not evolution and random chance.
    If it was not a lab leak, then it was most likely much worse.
    A preplanned release of a manmade and engineered virus patented, where they refuse to release the full isolated virus for a true vaccine.
    released to do exactly what it is doing take away rights and freedom, kill the weak and old, sterilize the young, create chaos and riots, and a reset, quarantine prison camps.
    no buying and selling without a mark.
    vaccine and booster shot addiction for big pharma, with no liability.
    in short a new world communist classed based order global wise, with all the major leaders signed on, and America and its dollar and freedoms and rights all totally destroyed and all that disagree silenced, censored, banned, fired, jailed, and legally discriminated against, and eventually killed.

  4. Many of us from the UK are horrified by the insanity that has swept the guardian. This just made me go buy your book. That and listening to the conversation about the 4th frontier.

  5. When the Guardian attacks you, you then know you hit the nail on the head😂😂😂 No normal thinking intelligent person would pick up that propaganda rag😂😂👍 keep going guys!!!!your on track !!!!

  6. I've already
    Died three times. I'm simply just to good for you to comprehend. You are going to have to kill yourself if you ever want to grow up.

  7. Stuart Richie is a researcher with many publications. He definitely is more than qualified to engage in scientific thinking. There's no evidence he started with a conclusion and worked backwards. If you wrote a book that contained technical information on evolutionary theory, he would happily review it positively if it was factual. He disagrees with your interpretations of evolutionary theory as well as statements about fluoride and many other things. The review contained references to passages in the book so he clearly read it, too.

  8. I’m really enjoying the book. I like very-much that i can hear each of your voices and get you humour as if I was listening to you on Darkhorse.

    I’m reading it because it is vocabulary for the world that we exist in, I file it in my mind under Noam Chomsky’s idea that he shared in Manufacturing Consent, as knowledge and weapons for an “intellectual self-defence.”

    I’ve been following you for some time, since Evergreen, and have heard you say this is something you’ve talked about and wanted to do for a very long time, (and I took a year recently to write a book) I share the understanding of what that’s like.

    In the world we live in, no surprises from the guardian. And you understand the polarization of ideology so this is par for the course.

    The first few chapters felt a a little slow, and then I considered that it’s the type of content that needs to be taken slowly, contemplated and digested, and used as a filter to examine ideas in the real world.

    Nothing by congratulations to the two of you, this is an important piece right now.

  9. I can't stand people telling me to follow the science when they parroting propaganda articles. Critical thinking was taught in school when I attended. Education has been replaced with awareness campaigns.

  10. I rather like Jordan Peterson’s comments about the problem with IQ, i.e. the danger of it being corrupted by arrogance. This could be “We’re right, we’re not prepared to consider a bit of humility in ever being wrong about anything, and we know more than you so we always know better than you.” Ms Heying would apparently dismiss me as something like a puddle of unworthy cells that “doesn’t understand science properly”, or does not know how to engage in scientific thinking. So at the very end of this clip, after smothering us with scientific credentials and justification, she then justifies the book ever including anything not yet intellectually vetted as “Well, that’s what science does.”! She clearly loves to impress with her knowledge and vocabulary. I’m not going to comment on the Guardian at all. I’m reading the book at the moment. Let’s just take the fact that these two, as brilliant as they are, are evolutionary biologists. They’re not medical doctors. They give advice in this book about dealing with broken limbs. They support this, not with science – not with data – but with an anecdote, which is just about the most unreliable anti-scientific thing you can do. I find this alarmingly irresponsible, unscientific, and unprofessional. That is not to suggest for a moment that the medical profession can’t be corrupt either – going along with established practice, doing what makes money; or that how to treat broken limbs shouldn’t be re-examined, with proper controlled studies. That is a potentially related but separate point. But if you ever break a limb, ask a doctor first, not a physicist or an evolutionary biologist, no matter how clever. And if you’re clever, stop thinking you’re always right and everybody else is always wrong and that you have nothing to learn.

  11. I believe it's called irony, the prevalence of commenters who conclude something regarding the Guardian as a whole based upon something they view as confirming that conclusion, which, as seems so often to be the case, is an indication that a comment is based upon the title of the video alone.

  12. The Guardian and the BBC are propaganda outlets for the government and shills for the pharmaceutical industry. That aside, no statue has ever been erected in honour of a critic.

  13. I actually like the fact that this person gave a review of the book the way they did.
    Because not only did he out himself about HIS particular world views and his unwillingness to probably even read the book, therefore he shouldn't be a book reviewer, but he also outed the Guardian for not being a reputable source for unbiased book reviews. It appears as if they sought out someone who would give a review of the book through a biased, politically shaded lens.

    So I actually thank them for that. Now I know to avoid the Guardian lol.

  14. The only problem with assuming that culture necessarily serves genes is Braess's Paradox. Otherwise though it's a really important often-correct principle. But Braess's paradox, applied to cultural infrastructure is also important. Civilizations seem to end up either stagnating (hunter gatherer) or catabolizing; and I think that those that catabolize are ensnared in all kinds of Braess's Paradoxes that ultimately force a defection cascade.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading…

0