http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/pinker-discusses-his-new-book-on-edge/
Steven Pinker is about to release a new book on writing. I’m holding my breath.
When you write you should pretend that you, the writer, see something in the world that’s interesting, that you are directing the attention of your reader to that thing in the world, and that you are doing so by means of conversation.
That may sound obvious. But it’s amazing how many of the bad habits of academese and legalese and so on come from flouting that model. Bad writers don’t point to something in the world but are self-conscious about not seeming naïve about the pitfalls of their own enterprise. Their goal is not to show something to the reader but to prove that they are not a bad lawyer or a bad scientist or a bad academic. And so bad writing is cluttered with apologies and hedges and somewhats and reviews of the past activity of people in the same line of work as the writer, as opposed to concentrating on something in the world that the writer is trying to get someone else to see with their own eyes.
If I were running a forum, I would ask posters to follow Pinker’s rules for writing.
Brevity is the soul of…lingerie.
Different style subject, I guess.
Glen Davidson
This is too often true of university textbooks and academic monographs.
Einstein and Newton were capable of communicating without jargon.
And there’s this.
http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/watsoncrick.pdf
I don’t understand the chemistry, but I can follow the paper anyway.
Considering Newton wrote the Principia in Latin, I think you are drawing a rather long bow. He may have had a wonderfully lucid style, but how many of us would know?
Newton wrote many things in English. And gibberish generally translates to gibberish.
Dpn’t get me started on this Pinker. I’ve just seen a few youtubes on him while looking for evolutionist youtubes and bang he starts sayingJews are superior to me and others. In fact he presses biology as the origin for intelligence, concludes he’s up there, and whines when people call him on it.
He has some dumb things on the mind generally and is just offensive intellectually and maybe morally THESE DAYS.
You want him you got him. not one of ours.
In case anyone is wondering what Robert is on about:
Jews, Genes, and Intelligence
Well, I confess to not wondering about Robert but I am now wondering what sort of research could be considered “Jewish research”?
Is Pinker saying he is going to address his readers as if they were elementary school students? Asserting the factual accuracy of completely oversimplified representations of modern understanding? I’m not familiar with his work. Anything particularly good I need to read?
Gralgrathor,
Um, no. I’m not sure where you got that idea.
My favorite is The Language Instinct, but everything I’ve read of his has been good.
I’m not sure either!
It would be somewhat presumptuous to describe the contents of a book that is not yet released for sale, but If a person who writes well writes a book on writing, it’s tempting to think it will be a good book.
It will probably be readable, so one could expect philosophers to say it’s shallow.
Is one way of being a good writer, asserting that one is? That seems to be Pinker’s method, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
In other works Pinker asserts that intelligence is highly heritable and can be tested. Really Steven, how do you define intelligence? Is a good painter intelligent if he doesn’t know geometry? What about a math wiz that sucks at video games. Or a sporting genius who can’t spell?
Is Pinker a member in good standing of the Inflated Ego Windbags Society?
phoodoo,
A Denyse O’Leary only comes once in a generation.
Hello, phoodoo.
No, I’m pretty sure he isn’t. In fact I can find no trace of such an association.
Can everyone treat phoodoo with the respect demanded by the roolz if he decides to continue participating. I hope we can avoid any “death-by-cop” incidents. while I’m away. 😉
Can I make lewd remarks? Not aimed at any particular person, just in general, I mean?
Of course! Just don’t post them as a comment. 😉
Seriously, I find the typing of obscenities pretty calculating. These are words that should be uttered with force and feeling and without thought as the occasion demands. Typing them makes me uncomfortable and I don’t do it (every rule has an exception, I confess.) as it seems false – but that’s just me. Even though she is dead, I still use the rule “would I be happy letting my mother read this?”
My mother has three sons, each more obnoxious than the others. She’d smile and say ‘boys will be boys!’
Being good at maths.
No.
Extremely smart person. Will take over the world, one day.
Dumb as bricks. Chasing around after a ball for hours on end, getting paid the big bucks just so we all can have a good laugh.
Gralgrathor ,
Well, then there are probably a lot of idiot savants that would agree with you. If only they had the mental capacity to know what agreeing with you means that is.
Beethoven, Van Gogh and Shakespeare might disagree with you however, and probably had the mental capacity to do so.
I guess Pinker himself is not so bright also, as he is certainly no math genius.
Or perhaps Pinker meant people with serious head trauma evolved to be smarter.
http://www.nairaland.com/1716599/man-becomes-math-genius-after
I wonder why woman are more attracted to David Beckham than to Steven Hawking.
Evolution sure screwed up that one!
You mean that a genome that physically disables its carrier is more likely to produce higher average numbers of offspring than a genome that produces a more or less capable physique?
Gralgrathor,
Oh, you are right Hawking’s case is an exception. Usually the math geeks always do so much better with the girls because of their brainy powers than the poor jocks and musicians who can never get a date.
Evolution scores again.
Pity the poor David Lee Roth’s and Mick Jaggers and John Lennon’s and Mike Tyson’s who could just never get laid.
Speaking of good writing, what does “all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding” mean in the context of this post?
ETA:
I assume the paragraph means that Pinker is a good writer only because he asserts himself to be a good writer.
Despite evidence to the contrary.
Evidence to the contrary:
1. Pinker does not assert himself to be a good writer.
2. Pinker is a highly successful writer. Successful in multiple senses. His books sell well; people actually read them; they are widely discussed.
Really? Do girls dig him that much then?
Hawking has three biological children, and Beckham four (known).
So the Jocks are ahead on that one.
Speaking of musicians, Mozart had six children, but no grandchildren.
Greg, sour grapes only make whine, not wine. perhaps you’d like to re-engage in the thread about your TedX talk? We were trying to get to the bottom of your ideas and understand how they can move science forward to a more productive place.
petrushka,
Dan Brown is also a highly successful writer. I am glad that you have pointed out that this does not qualify as good.
According to classic evolutionary understanding, no woman should want to sleep with Hawking.
But then again, any story works under your theory. Its an explanation for everything and nothing once again.
You bein’ serious here? Or just taking another random jab at evolution to show people what a staunch defender of whatevertheheckitisthatyoudefend you are?
Gralgrathor,
Yes, I am being serious, very serious. Evolutionary theory is a joke.
This statement does not jive with my interpretation of evolutionary understanding, “classic” or otherwise. Please explain.
I will toss in here, just to roil this a bit, that Hawking’s genetic defect is unlikely to affect his children.
Heh, then it should not trouble you too much to come up with a better alternative.
In the meanwhile we’ll just carry on as is. Do let me know when and where I can read about your alternative.
Citation please.
No, I don’t think you are. Had you been, you might have explained why you think that evolutionary theory prohibits procreation for unfortunate souls such as Hawking, rather than just asserting it does.
And the pool of potential partners is enriched for women who may understand this.
I think you are thinking waaay too hard. My suspicion is that phoodoo’s version of “classic evolutionary understanding” is “chicks dig hunks”, whereas everyone now knows that “chicks dig guys who drive stick“.
😉
Chicks (statistically) favor wealth and power.
Someone who holds Newton’s university chair is likely to attract someone.
But, more importantly, natural selection is a stochastic phenomenon. And, most importantly, humans have, to some degree, out-evolved their own instincts. So every once in a while a gal might go for a guy who drives a bicycle, or a wheel chair.
But, seriously – this phoodoo guy – is he serious? I mean, I know we’re supposed to assume he’s serious, but is he? Serious? Seriously?
Could Hawking have a rotating bed, stashed away in an apartment in London somewhere?
Some posters like to emulate Triumph, the insult dog.
This is a particularly inane comment, Gregory.
We (or at least I hope we do) have lives beyond the blogosphrere. Speculation over who can spare what time and when is unseemly.
How does one judge competence in philosophy?