Growing up in Brazil, a total political economic social caothic mess, everything is always umpredictable, and this gave us some high levels of anxiety that we just got tired of it and decided to let it go. We don't have control. We just live. We don't trust our goverment but we have to handle it anyway. Maybe that's whats started happen to America. To me, I'm so connected to american culture that I'm also afraid to see a world with a dominance from a strange unknow culture from China or Russia or Germany.
Really loved this talk/interview. Two of the coolest heads around. Hoping for another round so you guys can get to the juicy stuff but also enjoyed hearing about Chris's background in this one.
On “freak of nature”, are you saying there was nothing wrong with the doctor’s use of this phrase given how he used it, or that the consequences that followed from it were too extreme (or both)? I know it’s not your main point in mentioning this case and you’re just wishing people would chill, but the latter (I’m aware you know this, just working it out) unavoidably depends to a degree on the assessment of these uses of language. We can’t expect people to be chill, for example, with open racism. Was the doctor’s comment open racism?
I’m a Gen X white man, about a decade younger than you, and recall in the past using and hearing ”freak of nature” when making fun of someone for some outsized or amusing personality characteristic, which could but did not have to relate to physicality or appearance, or when highlighting some talent without a name. But it was never a plain insult. It was pejorative (generally) on the surface but intended to express appreciation, or to laugh good-naturedly.
At the same time, although I do not doubt that the thought might have entered my mind, I’m pretty sure I never spoke this phrase to, or to describe, a black person, even a visually striking one, especially if the person’s appearance were the only reason to speak it. I surmise I was aware even in the 80s that, if I had the mind to do it, the idea was probably not wise even if my intention would only have been to use the phrase in its customary sense or to pay a compliment - which is what it seems the doctor thought he was doing.
Hearing your description of the doctor’s case, even though I agree that he should not have been fired and shamed so severely, it still comes down with the bump I had it somewhere in my younger mind to avoid. Why? Because, as my millennial wife says, “freak of nature” implies being outside of nature, or a distortion of nature, and white men have a history of characterizing black people this way to subordinate and dehumanize them, with unfortunate success. This arguably places the phrase on the racist linguistic spectrum which terminates with the N Word, although where exactly on the spectrum it is, is contestable.
I think the problem we have with what happened to the doctor is that these considerations ignore intent. Whereas in the 90s George Carlin said that the intention behind a word was what made it good or bad, today the intention behind a word has been declared irrelevant among a certain contingent in these language controversies - which is ridiculous and untenable on its face. I think that the desideratum of “chill” will be achieved when we can locate a more rational Intent-Impact paradigm, case by case, over time, and meanwhile not overreact when someone who obviously is not malignant makes an arguable mistake with some proscribed utterance (not that utterances should be proscribed).
Interesting. I agree the term is not Racist in the literal, clinical sense and that it can be used neutrally. Like I said, intent, another word for semantic sovereignty, counts. But I still wince when I think of myself, a white man, applying the term to a black woman. I would not generally expect it to be heard in a strictly anthropological or statistical sense even if I meant it that way. Maybe I’ve hung around too many language commissars. They’ve been hard to avoid. At any rate the guy should not have been fired. That was just absurd, and it indulged exactly the wrong cultural and political impulses.
I'm saying it wasn't racist at all. She IS a freak of nature (i.e. at the extreme of some distribution). As I think I said in the rant, someone who is very tall, very short, very fast, very smart, very talented ... these are all "freaks of nature." Mozart was a freak of nature, as was Galileo.
What an absolute delight to see this conversation in my feed! Always inspired by the way you both think, communicate, and flow so naturally with changes in the zeitgeist. Beautiful minds at work.
Love the meandering convo… hoping the geopolitical karma goes to the authoritarian assholes in charge right now instead of the poor and middle class … but we know how that usually goes
I enjoyed this conversation (or was it more of an interview?) and look forward to more. On the one hand, even though I've been listening to Chris for years and years and years, I learned some new things today about his path and how he got where he is. Additionally, it was nice to hear a small bit of counter narrative or counter questioning of some basic presumptions. Like anyone, I'm prone to aligning myself with an ideological bubble and it's helpful to have someone challenge or widen that bubble a bit by questioning it or perhaps proposing alternative possibilities. Will be curious to see where this goes in future conversations!
Bonobos strike me as being a love based culture and chimps as being a fear based culture. Female choice could be affected by fear to move even slightly toward stronger more aggressive males. Over the course of generations, even slight perturbations in breeding success and survival can be amplified. It would be interesting to see how female mate choice differs in terms of size strength and aggressiveness between warlike tribes of humans and more pacific more matriarchal ones. It really doesn't matter one whit if you understand where babies come from. From the standpoint of evolution, it only maters who you choose to copulate with.
Fascinating chill baboon culture. I wonder if there is some aspect of selection of which males are allowed to come into the group. It could be both that the new males are accepting of the peaceful nature and that more aggressive males are not being allowed to come into the group. I don't know enough about the group entry dynamics. As to the interspecific competition theory where a larger more powerful species is present or not. Larger more aggressive male groups might be more able to effectively compete when resources are scarce against stronger species. It could be a partial driver that might tip scales even slightly. Clearly with primates culture is also capable of being a strong evolutionary force.
Hi, my name is Daniel Pinchbeck. I'm an intellectual moron.
So excited for this conversation! 😊✊
That was great. Big fan of you both. Do it again. Loved it.
Growing up in Brazil, a total political economic social caothic mess, everything is always umpredictable, and this gave us some high levels of anxiety that we just got tired of it and decided to let it go. We don't have control. We just live. We don't trust our goverment but we have to handle it anyway. Maybe that's whats started happen to America. To me, I'm so connected to american culture that I'm also afraid to see a world with a dominance from a strange unknow culture from China or Russia or Germany.
Really loved this talk/interview. Two of the coolest heads around. Hoping for another round so you guys can get to the juicy stuff but also enjoyed hearing about Chris's background in this one.
On “freak of nature”, are you saying there was nothing wrong with the doctor’s use of this phrase given how he used it, or that the consequences that followed from it were too extreme (or both)? I know it’s not your main point in mentioning this case and you’re just wishing people would chill, but the latter (I’m aware you know this, just working it out) unavoidably depends to a degree on the assessment of these uses of language. We can’t expect people to be chill, for example, with open racism. Was the doctor’s comment open racism?
I’m a Gen X white man, about a decade younger than you, and recall in the past using and hearing ”freak of nature” when making fun of someone for some outsized or amusing personality characteristic, which could but did not have to relate to physicality or appearance, or when highlighting some talent without a name. But it was never a plain insult. It was pejorative (generally) on the surface but intended to express appreciation, or to laugh good-naturedly.
At the same time, although I do not doubt that the thought might have entered my mind, I’m pretty sure I never spoke this phrase to, or to describe, a black person, even a visually striking one, especially if the person’s appearance were the only reason to speak it. I surmise I was aware even in the 80s that, if I had the mind to do it, the idea was probably not wise even if my intention would only have been to use the phrase in its customary sense or to pay a compliment - which is what it seems the doctor thought he was doing.
Hearing your description of the doctor’s case, even though I agree that he should not have been fired and shamed so severely, it still comes down with the bump I had it somewhere in my younger mind to avoid. Why? Because, as my millennial wife says, “freak of nature” implies being outside of nature, or a distortion of nature, and white men have a history of characterizing black people this way to subordinate and dehumanize them, with unfortunate success. This arguably places the phrase on the racist linguistic spectrum which terminates with the N Word, although where exactly on the spectrum it is, is contestable.
I think the problem we have with what happened to the doctor is that these considerations ignore intent. Whereas in the 90s George Carlin said that the intention behind a word was what made it good or bad, today the intention behind a word has been declared irrelevant among a certain contingent in these language controversies - which is ridiculous and untenable on its face. I think that the desideratum of “chill” will be achieved when we can locate a more rational Intent-Impact paradigm, case by case, over time, and meanwhile not overreact when someone who obviously is not malignant makes an arguable mistake with some proscribed utterance (not that utterances should be proscribed).
Interesting. I agree the term is not Racist in the literal, clinical sense and that it can be used neutrally. Like I said, intent, another word for semantic sovereignty, counts. But I still wince when I think of myself, a white man, applying the term to a black woman. I would not generally expect it to be heard in a strictly anthropological or statistical sense even if I meant it that way. Maybe I’ve hung around too many language commissars. They’ve been hard to avoid. At any rate the guy should not have been fired. That was just absurd, and it indulged exactly the wrong cultural and political impulses.
I'm saying it wasn't racist at all. She IS a freak of nature (i.e. at the extreme of some distribution). As I think I said in the rant, someone who is very tall, very short, very fast, very smart, very talented ... these are all "freaks of nature." Mozart was a freak of nature, as was Galileo.
Is this the equivalent of knocking on the captain's door?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DClmCOW8QE
What an absolute delight to see this conversation in my feed! Always inspired by the way you both think, communicate, and flow so naturally with changes in the zeitgeist. Beautiful minds at work.
Love the meandering convo… hoping the geopolitical karma goes to the authoritarian assholes in charge right now instead of the poor and middle class … but we know how that usually goes
I enjoyed this conversation (or was it more of an interview?) and look forward to more. On the one hand, even though I've been listening to Chris for years and years and years, I learned some new things today about his path and how he got where he is. Additionally, it was nice to hear a small bit of counter narrative or counter questioning of some basic presumptions. Like anyone, I'm prone to aligning myself with an ideological bubble and it's helpful to have someone challenge or widen that bubble a bit by questioning it or perhaps proposing alternative possibilities. Will be curious to see where this goes in future conversations!
Assassinating Pinochet? Wasn’t it Allende?
Yes. Misspoke, I guess.
Bonobos strike me as being a love based culture and chimps as being a fear based culture. Female choice could be affected by fear to move even slightly toward stronger more aggressive males. Over the course of generations, even slight perturbations in breeding success and survival can be amplified. It would be interesting to see how female mate choice differs in terms of size strength and aggressiveness between warlike tribes of humans and more pacific more matriarchal ones. It really doesn't matter one whit if you understand where babies come from. From the standpoint of evolution, it only maters who you choose to copulate with.
Fascinating chill baboon culture. I wonder if there is some aspect of selection of which males are allowed to come into the group. It could be both that the new males are accepting of the peaceful nature and that more aggressive males are not being allowed to come into the group. I don't know enough about the group entry dynamics. As to the interspecific competition theory where a larger more powerful species is present or not. Larger more aggressive male groups might be more able to effectively compete when resources are scarce against stronger species. It could be a partial driver that might tip scales even slightly. Clearly with primates culture is also capable of being a strong evolutionary force.
Fun to eavesdrop! Thanks both for the chat!
I am hoping that geo-political Karma comes crashing in