Class Day Lecture 2009: The Uniqueness of Humans

[@JeanDeLaBon]

"The more that you think that it is impossible as a single person to change the world for the better, the harder that you must never give up trying"! Awesome!

[@thedundeeladdie]

Wow, I have no higher ed qualifications but at the age of 40 this guy has inspired me to to take a science degree at university. Thank you Mr. Sapolsky.

[@dagshadowville]

Between his bits on Radiolab and seeing this speech, I think I've developed a man-crush on Robert Sapolsky.

[@kefsound]

And what the hell is a "man-crush"?

[@Galifamackus]

@@kefsound imo when you want them to be your bro and go out to dinner and other social occasions with you, but not to the level of romance or seduction

[@mirada2007]

I was almost in tears at the very last part in the end!! So nicely said! Really a remarkable speech that is filled with sparkles and wits. Thanks for sharing it with us!

[@simplerachel11]

...humans have the capacity to simultaneously believe in two contradictory things. the simple answer is, " the least lovable the person is, the most you must find the mean to love them..." how beautiful.

[@s117godd]

Holy shit! That was really cool! And he even brought it total epic full circle at the end. Well done!

[@casildac7]

I'm in love with this man; his science is comprehensive, thoughtful, and very relevant. This clip is well worth watching, sit through the intro, the rest is very interesting.

[@robertonovelo]

Everyone's moral imperative should be this whole idea. We all have the power to make a change. If we could, we should.

[@Norvegicus50]

A exceptional speech! Definitely worth viewing the entire presentation! Robert Sapolsky begins at 0500 if you wish to skip the Stanford Provost intro.

[@Dondlo46]

He talks about almost exact same topic in different lectures, I never get bored to listen them again and reinforce my memory

[@Naturalist1979]

This was an outstanding lecture, with a wonderful conclusion. It pays to view it multiple times.

[@the_dwin]

I don't know what's better. His hair or his speach! Either way that was amazing!

[@ProducShuns]

He's my hero. I've learned so much from his YT videos

[@joekraemer4620]

I'm very grateful to the New York Times for steering me toward this truly fascinating talk!

[@CatboyPrincess]

Personally, I feel like the final contradiction is more of a result that follows from the secondary theory of mind. Integrals are to functions as secondary theory of mind is to theory of mind, and the final contradiction is an instance of employing secondary theory of mind. Since if there is no reason for someone to do X and yet they do X, then clearly they must have a motivation, just not what is expected.

[@alexanderchebykin6448]

Interesting proposal. I can agree both with your mathematical metaphor and the thought behind it: surely, there was a reason for that nurse to do what she did, wether it was something she read in a book, was told by others, or saw with her own eyes. P.S. Also, wow, yours' is not the kind of comment one expects to find on youtube. Thank you for it.

[@malcolmX213]

Quite possibly a video that everyone on this planet should be shown.

[@carlos2401]

He was being poetic. Those last words were obviously intended to touch his audience rather than to tell truth

[@primesoftnz]

Excellent talk. Particularly interested on the section on reward and found the last minute inspirational. Off to save the world by myself again.

[@catmartinn]

What an extremely well spoken, inspiring, and clarifying lecture. I wish this man was my professor.

[@goonerboi]

Amazing to watch it without ads

[@johndurrett3573]

Love his work, his wit, speaking voice and thoughts shared. Where I differ is in a presumption that stems from humans being unable to fully communicate and understand the languages of insects and animals is that they don't have as advanced or meta thoughts as humans. It may simply take a different form then we can conceptualize or give credit to others.

[@ashleylovesdaddy]

5:00 in is when the intro is over. Such a good speech. Precious closing remarks. Everyone should hear this speech. ...I think I've heard a lot of speeches on youtube that everyone should hear.

[@Galifamackus]

I summon you 11 years later to hear some speech recommendations

[@tmptwassteffensen5807]

Living in the northwest (Idaho), we are secluded from the cultural integrties that much of the US is accustomed too. If only we were able to have professors such as Dr. Sapolsky to enlighten us up here. Perhaps the people up here can shed some of their prejudices and be able to progress a little faster. So, instead of living 20 years in the past i would be only 5.

[@volkmarschocke1586]

the final conclusion is as convincing as it is sublime: if you are in a privileged position, this does not mean you are better than the others, it means you are more committed to care

[@deeliciousplum]

Thank you so much for sharing this Professor Sapolsky talk.

[@Guitcad1]

When Sapolsky tallks about Franz Marc's 'The Fate Of The Animals' (25:30) he says that Marc was "basically destroyed" by World War I and that the painting was made shortly afterward. In fact, the painting was made in 1913, before WWI and Marc himself was literally destroyed in the war, killed at Verdun in 1916. Sorry for nitpicking.

[@ashokrayvenn]

Somehow I got here and then listened to the whole lecture---well done!

[@godfathersjn]

So it seems that what distinguishes us as human is not the ability to care or to sympathize with even a bizarre or non human entity. Nor is it the capacity to recognize in other's mature and differentiated personalities. It is the ability of the human to delude himself with faith that is the answer to the riddle. To hope when evidence indicates something else. Well, I for one am impressed with both the candor and performance of this argument.

[@israelmaven1]

I'd love to have him as a professor

[@ajsilver4216]

On the topic of sustaining a contradiction in ones mind, Sapolsky used an example of one nun who'd counseled inmates on death row for 40 years. This nuns answer can otherwise be said like the Buddhists; With whom can you practice forgiveness other than your enemy? (Emphasis on whom, and than.) I wish I could do that more on a daily basis

[@PlatonsArm]

Incredible. Everyone should see this.

[@lisamargarettomlinson6459]

Sapolsky rules. Zebras do too. And Stanford has my vote for sharing this treasure of a class day lecture. Rock on Robert!

[@funny-video-YouTube-channel]

This talk has great value. I liked it ! Elephants, Whales and Dolphins were left out, because they are uniquer than chimps. Elephants could beat humans at some points that he mentioned. So he made it easier for him by cheating the audience by leaving out the facts. He generalizes all the other species by comparing apes and humans. This is misleading. Also, he is using the natural ego of humans to connect to his audience. Slightly too much populism and subjective thinking.

[@malcolmX213]

Yes balance in all things is so important to life.

[@jeffreygarcia8433]

Professor Sapolsky, where were you all my life?

[@resident5124]

writing cornell notes right now for this. god damn it. College is LOVELY

[@illywacker1]

I enjoyed every word - nice, clear and understandable speaker and so interesting.

[@NoiseSauce]

absolutely amazing talk - inspired

[@gemurph]

simply brilliant

[@TedDGPoulos]

@Paulginz The applications you refer to are exactly right, which is not a coincidence, as you'll learn, when you compare them with the succinct literature that is now available. (Recommend: Do not let this fact escape you.) . As for taking the easy route to 'learning,' you're not alone in this thinking. It's very common. An enormous problem exists with it, however: It is irreparably damaging to one's application of the law, and it eliminates one's joy of making an extraordinary discovery!

[@skipplet]

Great lecture.

[@arjunchopraable]

what if academics such as robert sapolsky could collaborate with architects/planners and find some way of working all this wonderful practical biological knowledge into the discourse that is concerned with shaping the world that we live in? May this be among the most important cultural bridges built this century?!

[@GTFRANKS]

brilliant lecture

[@LockeShocke]

Wow, his last 30 seconds or so were incredible. (Not to mention the rest, of course.)

[@MeinKraft1]

This really is an impressive video, but I have some objections. For every example he gave for why humans aren't special, he cited an experiment which proved his point. However, when he stated that humans are in fact different from over species, he left you to take his word for it without a source supporting his argument. For example, it is quite possible animals are capable of secondary theory of mind, but due to the obvious language barrier, it would be nearly impossible to test.

[@Tippitapitus]

I just ordered a couple of his books. Can't wait...

[@d0nj03]

The problem IMO is in how "value" is measured, i.e. how much subjectivity goes into what money is deemed to be "worth". This is what ultimately leads to the accumulation of grotesque amounts of capital by people who cannot physically be so much more productive than everyone else. Economy has to get more physics-based if it's to become more fair.

[@MichaelJonesC-4-7]

This is the first time I ever saw him in a suit jacket.

[@harrisonhatton]

His final contradiction is brilliant.

[@SethDickensPlus]

Wondering why the auto sub-titles don't work. I really love this lecture and oh-so-wish the auto subtitles worked so that I could use it with my own students... Any chance guys?

[@wkatz0]

What a glorious talk. Please all rate down the theological arguments.

[@Jestlow]

@southsidesman No way. I am always impressed at how he can just nonstop pump out info. Hard not to pay attention.

[@vryc]

I loved this.

[@3Kytheria]

Pr. Robert Sapolski is a genius.

[@FrJohnBrownSJ]

@TimW405 No, this is not the only thing I got from his lecture. I just felt like pointing out that it was a distraction. I'll check out his other lectures.

[@dariusasghari]

i love this man

[@anycon]

i saw this months ago and haven't forgotten it go science!

[@ytubeanon]

The last point is well taken, but there's a thin line between stubborn ignorance and an intelligent resolve to a cause. Ultimately there is only one cause worth pursuing and that is the technological singularity and life extension to solve all problems.

[@Cre8tvMG]

@bl8ant I've done 30+ years of research into cosmology, molecular biology, astrophysics, string theory, M theory, 4 dimensional geometry, poetry, screenwriting and more. I can't be an expert in every field, but I can know enough to engage in meaningful conversation with people who are actually interested in discussing science, rather than just calling their opposition" f'ing" names.

[@Paulginz]

@TedDGPoulos Correct. Also, I couldn't tell for sure if ANY of those applications were actually possible. So I was pretty much making guesses about what the law might be (e.g. equation describing the behaviour of all matter and energy.), and then thinking of applications. Yes, a couple of billion at least should, given enough time to think. The leading physicists have very likely already done so. The question is worthwhile. I just don't see where you're going.

[@CTimmerman]

24:45 Lots of animals care for other species, possibly at an even lower level than ants and their lice.

[@Lions4322]

Source?

[@alexlloyd3850]

20:52 "Oh, got a beard hair in my mouth. Hold on."

[@JLongTom]

Euhh, why all the thumbs down? Good point sir, I'd say! Be it faith in some kind of god, faith in science, in evidence-based reasoning, or faith in human progress and uniqueness, pretty much everyone puts their faith somewhere.

[@TZMMiami]

awesome

[@luis151562]

Please, to have faith in something is a human need, and everybody know that.

[@yorenfromabove]

Well it is and evolutionary thing for humans to be scared of spiders. Some spiders are pretty dangerous, so not loving a possible threat is normal. But your right I think it's nature to care for living things. Nature is a state of balance.

[@SgtHydra]

16 aliens got jealous and thumbed this awesome video down. To be quite honest, if there are any of the 265 comments that regard humans to be outright equal to or inferior to anything at all, excluding the Big G Himself, I seriously believe our education system needs to be revised to inform people how awesome they are. Not just for "self-esteem," but as a simple fact. Humanity über allies!

[@malikahmoomin]

remarkably brilliant!

[@OneWorldHistory]

It is both obvious and curious that this "strident" oddball atheist was choosen by the graduating class to make the final speech they would hear while at Stanford. Naturally, the religious right loathes Prof. Sapolsky, his long hair, his message, his fame, his friendship with Richard Dawkins, and his humor. I use the term 'oddball atheist' to stress a point he makes himself. "The very contradictory nature of it is what makes it vital and essential and a moral imperative." Thank you Stanford.

[@a.b3748]

I have a lot of respect for his way of phrasing and articulating his thoughts, he has a clear message and enough understanding of how to communicate it, being aware of empathy, ethics and all of those responsibilities. Sadly, this info is "propaganda science" in my culture and always ridiculed

I guess the culture. First guess islamic culture - second guess creationist culture.

[@a.b3748]

Adilos Cantürk yeah I meant Middle eastern countries

[@TedDGPoulos]

@Paulginz It does mean that, yes. Remember, the subject in question is not "an underlying law of nature," as you referred to once again in your last sentence. The subject is, the underlying law of nature. You might agree, an unintelligible (incomprehensible and non-practicable) law would be a wholly useless one. The underlying law of nature, on the other hand, is found to hold more uses than we know what to do with, for it applies to all conceivable things ... everything and everyone.

[@danwilkie81]

@nickbleuer76 Keep in mind that he does recognize and discuss that humans do have certain qualities that separates them from other animals. He is just trying to show that humans are not all that special in a number of areas.

[@TedDGPoulos]

@Paulginz . The underlying law of nature. . The original subject is singular. There is only one law in question as relates the underlying law of nature. . In effect, you changed the subject when you omitted the word 'The.' . The question you put forward would involve a search for no particular law among others that are all of equal relevance. . Contrast this with a search for the underlying law of nature, which refers to a single, underlying law ... the one that underlies nature and all laws.

[@CultOfEmpathy]

watch the whole thing

[@Cre8tvMG]

Just do this one thing: give me a logical support for any objective standard of morality that is not merely based on your personal preference. Show logically how it is superior to other standards and can't be superseded by someone elses' personal preferences.

[@zabelicious]

Brilliant guy! I love him... Unfortunately, Truth is not for everybody. So it seems

[@Fubukio]

In general, humans have 4 main things in their minds to help the survival of their species. This is called "The 4 Fs": Fighting, Feeding, Fleeing and Mating.

[@HigherPlanes]

Excellent talk.

[@diogenesdescendant]

Inter species empathy and altruism is, from what I have understood, represented in non human animals. All from apes having pets and two different species of animals becoming friends to dolphins helping humans and seals when they are in danger.

[@VeniceCA90291]

Regarding sustaining the contradiction and pursuing the impossible (eg. forgiving the unforgivable, loving the unlovable), why is it that that imperative elevates us? And how?

[@TedDGPoulos]

@Paulginz Paul, I can see the question interests you. But consider that it may be a passing interest only. That is, were it possible and extremely useful to identify the underlying law of nature firsthand, for yourself, do you see yourself genuinely making an effort to do so? Before you answer, bring to mind one or two of the biggest potential applications you can think of for the underlying law of nature.

[@manysounds]

This video is awesome and right on! Also, I want his hair.

[@LiveLaughLove8489]

i loved the cycle synchronization. it was hysterical. and the synchronization wit the hamster was it?

[@Cre8tvMG]

And I'm still waiting for exodized to answer the salient point: "give me a logical support for any objective standard of morality that is not merely based on your personal preference." This was what we started on, not fossil records.

[@gronkel4158]

wizard beard brings my attention up by 100% wish all my teachers had one of 'em

[@TedDGPoulos]

@Paulginz Keep in mind, no such claim was made. You must have simply assumed this based on the collective knowledge and familiarity we each have with Earth, Fire, Homo sapiens, etc. Which is perfectly understandable, Paul. Relatively speaking, very few people in the world have ever even considered the question of the underlying law of nature, let alone being among those who can say they have identified it firsthand and know what it is.

[@malcolmX213]

Haha that is an amazing snippet of your life. Humans care about all living things. Not caring about them is something you have to learn or be taught.

[@astroborne]

this was really interesting

[@OE509]

27:34 Very profound...

[@TheMannihilator]

Great talk! You can only proove existence of something whicht is well defined. In case of the most religions god(s) are not. so it is irrelevant. Blind believe is the opposite of believe. To say something about god and religion is abitious becaus you cannot proove certain things in either way. The subjective truth is changing permanently and any "fact" must be questioned if it bothers you.

[@Cre8tvMG]

@bl8ant Kudos on your description of Christian theology - certainly the most creative and outlandish misrepresentation I've come across, and pretty funny. It's not at all accurate, but it's entertaining.

[@uri0]

just awesome

[@ilkeryoldas]

Great lecture!

[@whatellerhvad]

Why is it that he expect anyone human or non, to actually be comprehending anything what so ever, it is facinating to watch, however I am not sure wich part it is that I find is facinating.

[@TedDGPoulos]

@TedDGPoulos Paul, I can see the question interests you. But consider that it may be a passing interest only. That is, were it possible and extremely useful to identify the underlying law of nature firsthand, for yourself, do you see yourself genuinely making an effort to do so? Before you answer, bring to mind one or two of the biggest potential applications you can think of for the underlying law of nature.

[@TedDGPoulos]

@Paulginz Open, healthy minds consider possibility and investigate, as you do. A closed mind dismisses possibility out of hand; often to mislead. . Principles for understanding the underlying law of nature are not in the public domain, purposefully so. An overview of its discovery, however, is available online where a logical, efficient approach to take is backed. That is, i. First-person identification (a simple process exists); ii. Understanding; iii. Application. . Google it.

[@Paulginz]

@TedDGPoulos I would make an effort to do so. Obviously, my degree of effort would depend on my perceived chances of succeeding. However, if someone has already figured it out I would much rather take the easy route and read an explanation. Applications: Revolutionising physics with a working theory of everything, thus enabling tons of important predictions in science, technology, industry, medicine etc. Possibly getting insights into morality and the so-called "purpose of life".

[@SalocinLupo]

It is infact not hard to test. The problem just is that there is no prove for secondary theroy of mind on animals, simply because it doesnt exist. Scientist studying different kinds of primates never saw any sort of secondary theory of mind. For example,as there are no individuals (at least at the moment) among primates that are capable to play there fellow primate friends off against each other. Which would be indication for the secondary theory of mind

[@spotlightman1234]

Skip to Sapolsky 5:12.

[@Illitizen]

HE FORGOT THE DRY CLEANING AND HE DROPS BOMBS!?!?! THIS GUY!