Steven Pinker on Good Writing, with Ian McEwan

Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligencesquared.com
__________________________
www.intelligencesquared.com/ev...
Filmed at the Royal Geographical Society on 25th September 2014.
Steven Pinker is one of the world’s leading authorities on language, mind and human nature. A professor of psychology at Harvard, he is the bestselling author of eight books and regularly appears in lists of the world’s top 100 thinkers.
On September 25th 2014 he returned to the Intelligence Squared stage to discuss his latest publication 'The Sense of Style', a short and entertaining writing guide for the 21st century. Pinker will argue that bad writing can’t be blamed on the internet, or on “the kids today”. Good writing has always been hard: a performance requiring pretence, empathy, and a drive for coherence. He answered questions such as: how can we overcome the “curse of knowledge”, the difficulty in imagining what it’s like not to know something we do? And how can we distinguish the myths and superstitions about language from helpful rules that enhance clarity and grace? Pinker showed how everyone can improve their mastery of writing and their appreciation of the art.
Professor Pinker was in conversation with Ian McEwan, one of Britain’s most acclaimed novelists, who has frequently explored the common ground between art and science.

[@BabelRedeemed]

I've summarized Pinker's advice from this and the "Sense of Style" video: - Be logical by starting small and progressing larger: o “kit and caboodle” o each point within a paragraph builds upon the previous - Show, rather than tell; metaphors and similes are helpful if they are descriptive and memorable. - Even academic writing needs to be visually pleasing - vary your sentence and paragraph lengths; don’t appear large and bloated. - Be direct. There is no need to apologize or “hedge your bets” with words like: presumably, somewhat, fairly, to some extent… o “[Give] the reader credit for knowing that many concepts are hard to define, and many controversies are hard to resolve; the reader is there to see what the writer will do about it.” - Be careful with all adverbs - many are vague or confusing. - Don’t over-use the passive voice; e.g. don’t say, “Mistakes were made.” - It’s okay to use singular ‘they’, and we don’t have to worry too much about many other prescribed rules.

[@needicecream100]

Understanding Each Other Great summary

[@ViolentLucius]

That's great! Thanks a lot! :)

[@nappyscribe1987]

Taoist Bacon 🤔

[@PaulaTerryLancaster]

Yes, but bullet points all need to begin with a consistent part of speech - the imperative verb, per your first example here. Even Pinker would agree!

[@thissunchild]

Great, but ideally one should take one's *_own_* notes and not rely on the summaries and notes of others. This also helps us to remember what we read or listened to. "Kit and Caboodle" means nothing to me.

[@Mathview]

My first encounter with startlingly good writing in the sciences was in our high school library where I found some books by Harvard Psychologist B.F. Skinner. I had no idea who he was, but I knew I wanted to learn to write like him. I also discovered that my tabula was not as rasa as my teachers thought it was.

[@TorontoIam]

LOL

[@BabelRedeemed]

And now, Orwell's rules: Orwell, George. 1946. Politics and the English Language. “[O]ne can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases: “(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. (ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do. (iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. (iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active. (v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. (vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.”

[@DieFlabbergast]

+Babel Redeemed Number six is by far the most important. In fact, all these so-called rules are dogmatic and therefore wrong. As the old Greek saying goes: "Rules are made for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools." Replace the word "Never" above with "Hesitate before doing ..." Sometimes the cliche turns out to be the most precise and vivid way to say something. Frequently, the passive is MUCH superior to recasting it in the active voice, but one should regard passive constructions with initial suspicion simply because they are overused in bureaucratic and business jargon, and in legalese. Reflect first before using. Again, sometimes the foreign word or scientific term is the only precise term available. The Golden Rule of writing is: Every Case is Unique - There are NO Blanket Prescriptions. To learn to write well, read respected writers' works. You will absorb the techniques subliminally.

[@pravinda333]

In short, Orwell rules.

[@BabelRedeemed]

Indeed, and I think Orwell assumed people would take #6 seriously. I interpret his use of 'never' as being ironic set-ups for the punchline of #6. Orwell was very funny. Even 1984 is full of comedy.

[@Jake-kn3xg]

These exact same rules appear in the Journalism style guides of today too I've seen them in the Economist and Guardian versions.

[@manuelodabashian]

Orwell kept things simple. I am not convinced this is helpful We need to make language expressive

[@antoni2nguyen]

I randomly start this video and cannot stop listening to the speaker. It's awesome!

[@DasnarkyRemarky]

What a wonderfully clear and beautiful mind Steven Pinker has! As Richard Dawkins once said "I think its high time the Nobel Prize for literature is awarded to a scientist and no other will be more deserving than Steven Pinker"

[@evelynbaron2004]

I think my views are fallible and likely to change as we learn more -- you get the picture. I am the enemy of dogma wherever it occurs. I have a low opinion of Dawkins based on an interchange with a scientist, Rupert Sheldrake who posited a theory and over a long period found enough evidence to warrant more study. He sent it to Dawkins who sent it back unread. This is not the act of a real scientist -- dont give a damn whether Sheldrake's ideas were viable or not; this is dogmatism.

[@evelynbaron2004]

re steven pinker. have you ever been in graduate school? Perhaps I was lucky but I would like to see Pinker in a seminar/classroom. This is my life; lots of thinking and the best thinkers don't think about themselves very much. Perhaps i'm wrong.

[@matthewpawelski767]

@@lancejohnson127 I did feel all of the fun of language being steadily expunged by Steven's precise and methodical dissection of it. Next to him is Ian, who's books are hit and miss to some, but nobody can doubt the power of his evocation. I believe there is use to both approaches, but for heaven's sake (and we know what the scientists did to that realm) let us not hand over language to the scientists.

[@sacredweeds]

42:15 is a persistent grating point with my friend and me where any time it's used I hear a litany about her father this her father that. Thank you for your presentations. Your very informative and I enjoy listening to your many lectures.

[@jamdoodles]

I loved this talk.

[@demystified8676]

I loved watching it. Very informative and intellectual.

[@robinwcollins]

"flaunt the rules": a question from the audience at around 1:05:00 and Pinker didn't say a thing. What a nice guy.

[@robinwcollins]

@@justinlukas5289 yes, that is the corrected word, and Pinker let it go because everyone knew what was meant.

[@lyricarol]

Thank you Steve Pinker!

[@marlenesoifer7219]

Finally, a great appreciative reaction am I receiving in my being

[@iga27]

Kudos to Steven Pinker! I've had great pleasure listening to this conversation.

[@E-Kat]

I don't know why I hate the word "kudos"? It's like something is wrong with it, can't really explain.

[@lizgichora6472]

Thank you so much, quite an inspiring discussion.

[@h-uk7702]

‘Quite’?

[@georgecotton434]

I highly recommend Pinker's book, I've been plodding through it and his previous opus (The better angels of our nature), and he is magnificent educator. What I love most about the book on writing are some of the horrific examples he dredges up from academic journals or creates himself to make a point, much better than the do's or don't's approach.

[@arp710]

Would you please share me the title of the book mentioned here .

[@ThomasKreuz]

@@arp710 Steven Pinker - The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century

[@anthonycraig274]

That funny, I didn’t feel the same about Steven Pinker’s book about how the brain works. Where he uses overcomplicates analogies with computer services. I am an IT Masters graduate and have been working in the field for over 20 years and still found it a very clunky and inelegant.

[@arkddee1981]

@@anthonycraig274 I think his writings became more clear. Better angels is much easier and more in line with the advice in the sense of style than how the mind Works

[@anthonycraig274]

@@arkddee1981 I literally stopped reading Steven’s book half way through. It was a good thing as many of the concepts put forward are incorrect. Evidence shows the brain works very differently than how he described. Anil Seth Being You, How Emotions Are Made by Lisa Feldman Barrett, or the Meme machine by Susan Blackmore were way better. I may try the book Better Nature

[@SusanKayne]

Very refreshing discussion.

[@r.b.4611]

This is an absolutely fabulous talk. I especially liked the cutaneous rabbit example. 'Tap on the wrist' while sounding to the misguided as not a very scientific phrase, is actually much better in terms of facilitating understanding than 'stimulus' which could mean anything that fits under the umbrella of stimulus! E.g. a punch in the face, whilst having your labia zapped by electric crabs, were electric crabs real.

[@karlpeterson9334]

Simplicity requires an effort to make the most out of the fewest words that are absolutely necessary to get your point across with the utmost clarity.

[@balayogiv]

Rules of language are not only relative to the goal of the writer but also context and content.

[@Symphonia16]

this is so interesting! this is my first time seeing this show!

[@dianadevlin3717]

Brilliant discussion, I learned lots from it

[@TP-om8of]

I didn’t learn anything. These guys are stupid.

[@Lebowski53]

A charming talk, but I think it is time we discussed Steven Pinker's hair. Is it entirely appropriate to champion a man's ideas when he has chosen to adopt a coiffure that comes off as the unholy alliance between a Los Angeles pornographer and a mid-ranking magician. It seems to have a life of it's own. I imagine it feeds off other haircuts, to become ever more powerful.

[@Iambecome]

+Lebowski53 Very original.

[@PhiI93]

+Lebowski53 That was hilarious.

[@Celula002]

+Lebowski53 Nice.

[@lyndonbailey3965]

+Lebowski53 'A charming talk, but I think it is time we discussed Steven Pinker's hair.' That would have been enough discussion for me.

[@nonjabusiness4360]

+Lebowski53 To answer your question, if you met one on the street, you should probably not listen to anything that a mediocre-at-best-pornstar-wizard has to say (Been there, done that: trust me that's one weekend I wish I could forget). In the case of Steven Pinker, you should.

[@haydenbarnes5110]

I’ve noticed this when Pinker gives talks. He repeats - word for word, phrase for phrase - himself all the time: his lectures are always the same, and his writings follow suit. That being said, I enjoyed this discussion :)

[@badgerlife9541]

I’ve noticed the same. He has every example, story, almost every sentence memorized. It can get repetitive. But I’m impressed by his memory! I couldn’t memorize such long talks.

[@geoattoronto]

Classical style - joint attention, announcing one’s unique vision, academic defending oneself against attack in one’s field.

[@blackcockus7518]

I sat in on one of his lectures once. As someone who's fluent in two other languages, I think he tends to overgeneralize a bit (as does Chomsky) by placing way too much emphasis on the English language. Plus he's cocky as fuck. But I gotta say "The Sense of Style" is by far one of the most impressive books I've ever read on writing.

[@libertarianonwheels1172]

Pinker is one of my favorite intellectuals.

[@E-Kat]

Because he was a thinker and he knew it could rime with crime.

[@sprinkle2513]

"As there was a stream of people pouring into a shabby house not far from the entrance, he waited until they had made their way in, ..." --Charles Dickens, "Nicholas Nickleby"

[@Bob-zu6nu]

Well spotted. But given how obsessively descriptive and visual Dickens was, it doesn't seem like such a crime.

[@sprinkle2513]

Che Bob "It was a shabby house, badly needing a coat of paint, but with the dignity of its period, ..." --W. Somerset Maugham, "Of Human Bondage"

[@Bob-zu6nu]

Unless you just searched for that, the specificity of your memory is quite bizarre.

[@thetruthwillsetyoufree4747]

Exactly I love this guy

[@paulsolon6229]

Speaker does much better when taking qs This video was helpful to me, thank you

[@kevinyee9550]

Great talk

[@thetruthwillsetyoufree4747]

Brilliant man I love his concept on the biology of philosophy the dissecting ofVerbal mental intelligence was absolutely wonderfully achieved it makes the concept of the whole conversation it Gave me more of a three dimensional view on the topic nicely worded nicely thought out

[@karlpeterson9334]

In late elementary school, the mere mention of the word 'language' which meant the English language in writing, reading, and spelling as well as proper grammar, was greeted by and large throughout the classroom, a response akin to the though of eating unpleasant tasting food.

[@freespuddy]

I first heard that Joyce "yes" quote in a movie, where the teacher that quoted it, paused in the right places to make it understandable. In essence, she put punctuation in the quote. I like the way she said it. However, I just read the quote, and couldn't understand it without punctuation.

[@vseme1572]

Thanks. Elucidating talk.

[@ignatiusmagnanimous]

Great stuff

[@Usefulmusic]

I have a 1923-dated edition of Fowlers English Usage which pours scorn on those who criticise split infinitives.

[@ignatiusmagnanimous]

McEwan, I believe he is one of the most important writers today. Both men are brilliant.

[@CaroleMora22]

My pet peeves are the shifts in the usage of "finished" vs. "done," and "lesser" vs. "fewer."

[@gbantock]

I like this speaker's emphasis on clear and suitable communication rather than on pedantries past and present. In my own writing, I strive intently for attaining the degree of precision or of inclusion or generality that I seek to convey. Writing about music so much, an intangible subject in so many (but not all) ways, this is a constant struggle, but it is one that can give much satisfaction when I think that I manage it well.

[@MMAoracle]

Gerald Parker I found that paragraph hard to read actually.

[@sams6306]

Couldn't agree more. I stopped to consider if I'd missed some great ironic joke. I haven't, and I'm not the butt of it

[@emdiar6588]

Whatever... I'm still not going to use a preposition to end a sentence with.

[@rachelleonard9994]

a locution up with which you will not put.

[@evelynbaron2004]

don't play the fool. I work with a lot of people with dyslexia and these things are simply smug arrogant idiotic comments.

[@ballroom16]

I would bet serious money that you frequently end sentences with prepositions. "I'm putting my shoes on." "I wonder what this button is for." "The tide is coming in." "The tide is going out." "I'm going to log on." "I'm going to log off." "Jane is coming over." "I'm sorry this wonderful trip is over." "Roger is always showing off." "My favorite show is on." "We're getting ready to go out." "The sun is coming up." "What's this world coming to?" "I'm taking my shoes off." What you really need to avoid are regionalisms: "Where's Jimmy at?"

[@sallylauper8222]

I see what you did there!

[@emdiar6588]

@@ballroom16 Errrrrm.... yeah. I think you may have missed the joke.

[@emdiar6588]

34:15 Really Steven? Are you sure? I think you'll find the order in which words appear has much more to do with the ease with which they can be spoken, the stressed syllables within those words and plain old convention. I give you: Bacon and eggs - bangers and mash - bubble and squeak - bucket and spade - fingers and thumbs - Jekyll and Hyde - wattle and daub - apples and pears - husband and wife - mother and child - strawberries and cream - hammer and tongue - needle and thread - sugar and spice - sweetness and light - Netflix and chill - etc. etc. etc. For every 'salt and pepper' there is a 'rosemary and thyme'. For every 'Simon and Garfunkel' there is a 'Sonny and Cher'. For every 'John, Paul, George and Ringo' there is a 'Crosby, Stills and Nash'.

[@wayneriley7367]

em diar funny, i always say - eggs and bacon, Jekyll and Hyde - the order is for good then bad. There are always exceptions to every rule as long as there usually is a reason.

[@emdiar6588]

@Dream Dream Serene hmmm. What?

[@lhiow6198]

however! love this part!

[@lucid8032]

The problem with ‘Hopefully’ - and other adverbs that set a mood at the start of a clause, eg ‘Sadly’ - is that it looks like an adverb unattached to any verb. This can lead to confusion: “Sadly, Bill and Lucy are emigrating”. The speaker may be sad about it, but Bill or Lucy can’t wait to go. Perhaps such usage could become fully accepted if we all agree that after a ‘Sadly’ or ‘Hopefully’ there’s a tacit ‘I’m telling you that’, so that the adverb is understood to be attached to the tacit verb ‘telling’ or ‘reporting’.

[@alanroberts7916]

Good luck there. seems we cant even get people to write or say this correctly: "JHON AND I ARE GOING TO THE STORE" is often "JHON AND ME ARE ...". In school I was taught certain things. And it can be a source of frustration when others aren't aware of the same rules of grammer.

[@thetruthwillsetyoufree4747]

Brilliant

[@thetruthwillsetyoufree4747]

My father always told me to think before you speak somethings never change I’m trying now

[@JPL243]

Steven Pinker seems like a lovely human being

[@thetruthwillsetyoufree4747]

I love you too

[@jrbconsultingassociatesltd2585]

I sense an apparent tendency to flex usage in some places but not others, a contradiction in fact because, why flex split infinitives but "unflex" meanings, say of words such as aggravate...

[@toobbeebopper]

I just checked my copy of Webster's Dictionary and one meaning of enormity is to denote huge size. So part of the problem would seem to lie with the gatekeepers of the language.

[@peterburke5894]

Another one is ‘differentiate’ meaning the application of a rate of change and not a verb to ‘distinguish’.

[@j.m.waterfordasxiphanex3738]

1:17:30 Mr. Pinker, the singular, "they," is perfect. What's interesting here is that it remains an issue for you.

[@ballroom16]

You're right (of course)! You might enjoy this article about the singular "they": n.pr/1PXdiGW

[@omgnotaflake]

That god damn Ulysess spoiler!

[@COAKY]

39:18 “The beginning student [...]” (singular) “[...] one of the first things they’re [...]” (plural).

[@YamiAi]

You can use 'they' to address one person, although it is informal.

[@standauphin1592]

Sick chat lads, literally lovin every second.#prosebros

[@karlpeterson9334]

The key to good writing, as I learned in a college writing class, in MISS: Make It Simple, Stupid.

[@curtcoller3632]

Steven, I agree with your candy/pencil box example and the metaphor "lunatics running the asylum". Writing (or speaking) fails as an instrument of communication when the writer (speaker) does not understand: How to address and motivate a reader (audience) directly and intrinsically How to explain terms and phrases, examples, metaphors, etc. based on "Eingangsvoraussetzungen", meaning the different entry levels, the variance of pre-existing knowledge - what the audience does not already know and what they really want to learn from this lecture or book. Finally, how to create and maintain intrinsic attention levels (to enter a classroom with the word "attention" is military jargon) "Attention class!" does not do any good, rather the opposite. You wouldn't start a book or article that way, because people won't take you serious, unless you have already established your authority. Teachers who demand attention have not established authority yet, they try it with this urgent demand but will never make it. That can have reasons in lack of shrewdness, integrity, fairness, knowledge, planning, methodical progress, etc. This methodical progress called "red thread" must maintain the student's or reader's interest in each and every lesson, lecture, book, article, etc. I honestly miss it at the highest level of intellectuals as well as in schools. Being savvy alone is by far not sufficient to be a good teacher or write a good book. Students start as kids with an incredible urge to accumulate knowledge. Schools and even parents systematically destroy that urge and by the time a student starts college he is in most cases already reduced to intellectual rubbish. He may have learned not to object, to avoid ISS, but he never learned how to form independence and opinions. That's what you need out there in life. Teachers must accept that their opinion about a topic is not the holy grail. Other opinions create diversity and discussion. They do not undermine authority, they do not suggest you are wrong or bad. The mere fact that they exist shows how good you are, because you allowed them to grow. With regards to the hypothesis "the internet destroys our language skills" - I strongly disagree. I have written my thesis long before the internet at a time when punch cards were about to be replaced by huge magnetic discs for data storage. There were no dictionaries in simple word software, but I noticed the future of education will be increasingly supported by multimedia. Yet, direct human interaction is and will always be a factor for effective education. The internet may reduce social skills. Some media may reduce us to 140 characters, some may even "suspend" opinions tweeted by a president. But they may end like KODAK, if they do not "rethink" their strategies. Let people talk and write - they need it. Who needs film to store images in a digital age. The blame for the undeniable decline of language (as you compared to 70s and 80s) goes hand in hand with the undeniable decline of manners, empathy, dialectic, etc. I remain optimistic. It may swing back when people realize the negative effects of bad education. The black sheep will have to leave the arena for good. Anarchists will admit - there are better ways to communicate and correct problems. Diplomacy will eventually replace wars. Even God may eventually be re-introduced as "reasonable agent of hope". To "boldly go where no-one has gone before" is in my opinion intentionally designed to emphasize the "how" of a journey not the "where" and that's not a grammatical error, it's a pragmatic improvement of "meaning". "Long time no seen" is completely incorrect grammar, but quite clear in its "meaning". The old saying used by sailors comes to mind: "It's about the Journey, not the Destination". The very first thought in good writing like in good leadership seems to be: What's more important? The second: Forget the rest.

[@Moxormog]

Only came here for Ian.

[@MrReynardMULDRAKE]

loved attonement though it took while to read it

[@Usefulmusic]

Somerset Maugham taught himself to write by first reading essays and novels by Swift and Addison, then writing, in his own words, the sense of what they wrote. He would then compare his and their efforts and note where he fell short.

[@Rohilla313]

Useful Music great writer. Love his books

[@josephfernando4867]

wow..thanks for sharing that...it is profound way to examine yourself...Somerset is my favorite..

[@PrateekLala]

@Lucifer Wang: you asked about the style guide referred to by McEwan at the end of the talk. He mentions "Burchfield's revision of Fowler", by which he means the third edition of H.W. Fowler's "Modern English Usage", as revised and edited by R.W. Burchfield: www.amazon.com/The-Fowlers-Modern-English-Usage/dp/0198691262

[@thetruthwillsetyoufree4747]

I love constructive criticism I learned from it

[@freespuddy]

I enjoyed Steven Pinker speaking, but when Ian McEwan started interviewing him, I became very irritated at McEwan's stumbling and halting speaking. When Pinker answered him, the difference was amazing. Pinker gave his thoughts without any stumbling or seemingly needing to think about it. Another thing that bothered me about McEwan was that I very seldom could understand what he was trying to say. Pinker was clear by comparison, even though I don't know the meaning of many of his words.

[@fanetrasca]

what about that dreaded microphone wrongly attached on Pinker's tie?

[@TwoFourFixate]

Idaho Spud, I have the same experience when listening to-and parsing-what Ian is trying both to physically say and to convey. To me, he is a brilliant person, but he is a very poor speaker.

[@eduardosavoa2240]

@@TwoFourFixate That's why he's a very good writer, but not a good speaker. It's almost axiomatic. There are very few great fictional writers who are good speakers. I can't imagine that Pinker would be a good fiction writer. He's an academic; they're never creative in their writing.

[@dave-macleod]

@@eduardosavoa2240 I know this is an old comment but check out Matthew Dicks, he's a rare example of a great speaker and a great fiction writer. He tells short stories on stage but also writes great novels.

[@spiritualpolitics8205]

I love Pinker on writing and linguistics, much more than on politics or climate change.

[@annafreitag9498]

I don't think Pinker could write good fiction. But he has fabulous hair. So he's got that going for him.

[@lsbrother]

+Anna Toor I don't know if he could write good fiction either BUT I do know he can write great non-fiction!

[@lyndonbailey3965]

+Anna Toor If only he had some other talents like being a scientist or an academic or something.

[@neilmcintosh5150]

+Anna Toor Great hair...Very rock n roll!

[@annafreitag9498]

lyndon bailey Well, there are other people who are scientists and academics as well, but not all of them have fabulous hair. Duh.

[@neilmcintosh5150]

Anna Toor Yes and even if they did have fabulous hair I doubt it would be as fabulous as Pinkers mullet.

[@jamesroach8841]

------------------ A User's Manual For The Aptitude ------------ Good writing is auditory as it is visual. If it engages the ear so that a definite voice is heard in the head, the writer's vision transfers more directly. It's how you would speak if you could with a miraculous lack of awkwardness. No less than poetry, prose is music refined from improvisation into something with a plan there's no time to build in the ordinary course of speech, only less regularly recurring in geometry of sound, less like a grid and more like a river system, and comparably more digressive. But the more you polish it for efficiency, the more it loses power, just as the more it's cut the more ponderously it moves. At least that's how it behaves when complete enough to seem alive. If agility were all that would be the end to it. To be alive it needs also the precision that comes only of well-assimilated memory, of populations more than digested, of effects remembered from forgotten phrasings, of experience made of many vicarious outings as if one were a lord who in reading had sent forth numerous vassals to report upon the world and everything in it, including themselves, without regard to time. Then allusion can take on huge dimensions, such as if I wrote a satire as if I were the Alexander Pope of prose, borrowing the manner of his magic for my own ends, pretending to be him and in the process becoming a little more like him but with a difference that depends on my own personality, the innate part that doesn't change however age or dress or fashion alters all the rest. The clothes grow-in only so far if one has the stuff to be at all good at it, and that takes a core tremendous in stability. No one can teach that. It's the perennial lament of the perennially bad writer, and the perennial ecstasy of one kind of exquisiteness becoming another, thence another's. Genius hops around through the centuries making different alliances between genes and memes as it goes, adapting circumstance to itself rather than vice-versa. So it isn't individual if it's rugged, which is why there can't be an -ism to it in life or art or an artful life. It's something that persists by means invisible without this playful science, and is ever invisible to whom looks at one's own senses yields little more than passing vertigo.

[@foreverseethe]

James Roach You are the exact kind of writer that Pinker (and yourself) deride. A bad one. unnecessary (and frankly clumsy) aliterations, symbolism and metaphors. your writing had no coherence and functions as a tentative expose of your vocabulary and canned figures of (advanced)speech. It suffers from a hodgepodge of tonalities that clash in a most unpleasant way. Good writing is clear accessible and concise. It's inventive only when necessary. You started off as if you understood this but then it looks like you got tired or lost your train of thought and just decided to put on display what you can do with the language.

[@jasongrady8590]

Can someone please tell me what word Pinker uses at 13:56? It sounds like "con-yu-shente." I can't trigger a result in Merriam-Webster's online site based on any of my attempts at spelling it. Thank you in advance.

[@Jxckers]

It took me some googling but I think I found it. co·gno·scen·ti känyəˈSHentē/ noun people who are considered to be especially well informed about a particular subject. "it was hailed by the cognoscenti as one of the best golf courses in Europe"

[@jasongrady8590]

BAM! That seems to be the one. Thank you very much! I really appreciate it.

[@guybarton3886]

Jason Grady Interestingly, I think he's indicating that he considers himself to be a member of the 'cogiacenti' by using the Italian pronunciation of the word.

[@samuelbungo4339]

Steven Pinker's hair are in the old-fashioned style of the 18th century, when philosophers wore curly powdered wigs.

[@rachelleonard9994]

hair are?

[@Urania4007]

In German, hair is plural

[@JustinHonaker]

@@Urania4007 Wouldn't that be "hair are plural"?

[@simianinc]

@@JustinHonaker no, because he is referring to the word “hair” (the signifier) rather than the growth from one’s scalp (the signified)

[@sidsid5442]

@@simianinc Thank you, knowledge rules.

[@TheRealValus]

Can anyone explain this policy of translating books and leaving numerous quotations untranslated? For instance, I'm reading a book by Frances Yates on the Renaissance and, every now and then, she quotes someone in Italian or some other language, without providing the translation of this quote. Evidently this is common practice, since I come across these frustrations in almost all of my books. I'd still like to know what the Latin inscription says at the beginning of Bloy's "The Woman Who Was Poor", which seems to be from the Office For the Dead, but does not exactly coincide with any translations I see online.

[@omnimetabell]

26:32 By heaven.

[@thetruthwillsetyoufree4747]

So be it

[@BrianMcGuirkBMG]

Hopefully, I'll find out eventually what's happening with hopefully.

[@evelynbaron2004]

This is to me an important reverie -- didn't find the right term but close enough -- regarding clarity in language. Clarity is the operative word. It was hard for me, growing up in the early '70s, to commit as a linguist to the accelerated pace especially in English which is not my 1st language (no French Academy etc) to the plethora of neologisms as language changed evermore quickly. Disinterested used to mean without prejudice and fortuitous was a synonym for happenstance.. When Sausurre wrote about an entirely new field of study he also thought that in macro terms one would need a new dictionary every 50 yrs or so, which is simply wrong. I was very lucky in my mentors in academe and this is an excellent conversation with Ian McEwan who paradoxically in my view has grown more accessible as time goes by; perhaps I read a lot of Ian McEwan. What is clear is that great writers either in expository mode or fiction write to be understood. Language is precious and not to be trifled with, to use a 19th century conceit. You could write in fiction like a waterfall if you were Charles Dickens but every paragraph would obey internal rules of coherence. Thank you to both participants, an inspiring conversation.

[@MrTravelWriter]

Very interesting.

[@stevenfielden8955]

Who's to judge?

[@TJ_USA]

The guy asking the last question referred to a "serific" problem. Or that's what it sounded like. What does that word mean?

[@archangecamilien1879]

11:13 ok, haha...yes, I've done that myself...I would never think of it like that...yes...

[@archangecamilien1879]

12:06 I think that tendency is the related tendency of being excessively humble...something prevalent, perhaps, in Western culture...I mean...many people will never say something positive about themselves even if they genuinely believe they have that positive trait...or never say something positive about something they've done, etc...

[@archangecamilien1879]

You can tell the bastard is a psychologist, haha...

[@archangecamilien1879]

17:41 ...ah..."diagram sentences", that's how they say it in English...they call it, haha, perhaps strangely, though perhaps it is logical, "Logical analysis" in French, and they tortured us with that in Haiti, I would expect they do that in France too...now, I really doubt it helped me at all, haha, reading was probably what helped me write...I never quite liked it, the "logical analysis"...

[@bennguyen1313]

Sam Harris also had some good tips on writing/speaking in his Ask Me Anything (AMA #7) around the 51m30s mark. Can't wait to hear Steven on Sam's podcast in January 2018!

[@vincentsprocket]

Great contents, guys. Please add subs! Thank you very much.

[@titohudson6118]

Intelligence Squared team, can you activate the subtitles generated automatically for your videos? PLEASE

[@Laocoon283]

No

[@adcaptandumvulgus4252]

12:36 I don't think he's doing that for his advice right there, just imagine what it was before you knew it and there you go boom. I remember when I didn't know stuff and then someone told me and I knew it's like oh that's good to know I was ignorant before. I guess his imagination isn't up to snuff, optimism will only get you so far?

[@peanutgallery7753]

I like how the guy who asked the last question, concerned with the so called decline in language, was himself a very poor communicator.

[@BKLorenBooks]

That guy has written many award winning novels. He is recognized nationally and internationally. He's British. And he's smart. And his style may not appeal to everyone. But with all due respect to your opinion (which is, of course, valid for you), he is not just "the guy who asked the questions."

[@peanutgallery7753]

Noone Peter I'm not talking about Ian Mac McEwan! He's great. I'm talking about the audience member who asked the last question.

[@BKLorenBooks]

My apologies!!! I did misunderstand. And now I get it and agree. Thanks for the nudge!

[@Laocoon283]

He's a product of his enviroment. Can one not be curious about something that they themselves are experiencing.

[@AustinoM]

Does anybody have the comic that is talked about at ~ 48:00 ??? I can't seem to find it but sounds truly hilarious.

[@georgelionon9050]

A few seconds in I laugh already at his "practical joke", "spatolous gaphiligook" is by itself spatolous gaphiligook (however you spell that)

[@rigilchrist]

I feel sorry for the young woman asking Pinker about English usage and twice using "flaunt" when she meant "flout".

[@robincollins1647]

I'm pretty sure Pinker and McEwan had to hold their tongues when a questioner used the phrase "flaunt the rules" instead of flout the rules.

[@staninjapan07]

He is a fascinating fella isn't he. Oh, was it terrible of me to write 'fella'? Oh no, should I have used a question mark after that question tag? Oh no. Another interesting and fairly pragmatic talk with him.

[@lyndonbailey3965]

+staninjapan07 Oh, was it terrible of me to write 'fella'? Only if apocope is a sin.

[@tetrapharmakos8868]

It was terrible that you used "isn't" instead of "ain't" in this context . . . Rule #1 - Never follow fella with isn't when ain't is possible.

[@Laocoon283]

He never said casual language should never be used anywhere.

[@plekkchand]

Pinker is very cogent, which makes it even more curious to me to reflect that he once characterized music as "auditory cheesecake". It seems that there may be substantial limitations even in the better minds. Perhaps the really curious thing is that once should expect otherwise.

[@stevenlee1448]

was the term "auditory cheesecake" confusing? Seems like a rather nice mataphor.

[@katinalangston6330]

Audience, Audience, Audience know your audience. How to talk to people 😇

[@jackmallory7996]

Interesting dialogue, though Pinker did most of the talking. It was the people in the audience that intrigued me. Why do people have to be so self-important? The woman who had to say she was from the 'European Commission.' Who cares? And as for the last questioner, he was unbelievable, a complete jerk, an embarrassment. He obviously was bent on showing how much cleverer he was than everyone else in the audience - even than Pinker and McEwan - and made a complete ass of himself. He used the word ‘soritic’ (I had to look it up myself and still couldn’t see how it was relevant in the context of what Pinker was saying) twice when he must have known that hardly anyone in the audience would have known what the word meant. He was probably hoping that Pinker would have to ask him what ‘soritic’ meant, thus making him look good and Pinker look bad. What a contemptible wanker. He even had to use the rare word ‘sanguine’ about Pinker’s approach to language use and writing. He was actually trying to find fault with the whole thrust of what Pinker had been saying but felt compelled to say it in a smart-ass way. Can’t stand people like that.

[@PaulaTerryLancaster]

Of course Pinker would know the meanings of both soritic and sanguine! Any linguist would know the sorites paradox, and anyone with a vocabulary of 100,000 words would know what sanguine means! Good Lord!

[@michaelduffy6874]

Steven Pinker was too polite to correct the lady who asked when it was OK to flaunt the rules.

[@DebWunder]

Yeah, I noticed that, too.

[@thetruthwillsetyoufree4747]

Would that mean let’s agree that we both disagreed with that being late in terms is that the concept that you’re trying to say or maybe I misunderstood

[@dolly_llamas_tea]

Thank everyone.

[@cloudincloudout]

I can't believe this man is 60.. some people start forgetting their grandchildren's names at 60....

[@Grazyna19555]

you obviously think like a person from a very backward culture.. that men at 60 are old and must be grandfathers. I am a woman of 59, just got a PhD, I have no grandchildren yet, my children of 29 and 32 are too young to have children!! maybe in 2-3 yrs time when their PhDs are completed and they have settled down. Re-think your culture and your society, please.

[@alienkishorekumar]

Natalia Koss You are a woman who is 59 and have a PhD and yet think people from backward culture(I don't know which PhD talks like this) can't remember their grandchildren names according ahmed barakat who seems to forget that there are 7 billion people on earth and many old people have good memories. You should have asked statistics from him instead of talking gibberish shit like "backward" culture. While all you are talking sounds like "backside" culture.

[@Meshwork123]

I'm pushing 60 and thinking about applying to do a research degree. My mind's never been better; my body, admittedly, never worse.

[@fubar12345]

Meshwork123 It might be because you read a lot of books - studies have shown reading reduces age related cognitive decline. Isn't it great when doing something you enjoy is also good for your health?

[@jamesaritchie2]

ahmed barakat I'm guess you're twenty. No one who doesn't have some brain disease starts forgetting anything at sixty. Many eighty and ninety year olds have a better memory than yours. I have a relative who is 103, and his memory is far better than the average twenty year old's.

[@giannisniper96]

What book (written by himself) is he talking about?

[@luciferwang7912]

What's the book Ian McEwan recommends at 1:17:08?

[@CathyS_Bx]

www.amazon.com/Fowlers-Modern-English-Usage-Burchfield/dp/0198610211

[@markhickton9418]

Not everyone has the talent of JR Tolkien or imagination of Frank Hubert. The best writing flows like poetry while stirring ones imagination and taking you on an incredible journey while making time stand still. Great writing is rarely appreciated anymore and it is getting harder to make a good living at it being as everyone spends most of their free time on you tube getting their dopamine fix in 30 second bursts.

[@leeroberts4850]

I really don't think JRR Tolkien is a good writer creative yes he's very creative but I wouldn't call him a good writer and being very creative and being a good artist you're not the same thing I read JRR tolkien's works when Fellowship of the Ring came out I read all three books before two towers came out and I was influenced to do so while I was growing up in foster care and one of the staff members at the Residential Treatment Center I lived in who had read JRR tolkien's Works prior to the movies advocated that I did so my eldest brother who stood in line with my older brother and his younger brother in 1971 for the opening of the first installment of Star Wars advocated that I do so as well because he read them and enjoyed them but when I got the two towers I spent three months re-reading the same chapter because it was so slow and dull and I could not pay attention to it this specific chapter was the chapter where wormtown is manipulating the king of Rohan and Gandalf expels his influence on the king I actually never fully paid attention to the chapter at some point I decided to skip it completely I would read it bits at a time and become distracted and bored I would return to continue reading and become confused and then turn back to the beginning of the chapter I would reread stuff I had already read lost and confused and then read past the point where I had returned to the beginning I did this over and over until I was about 75% of the way through that specific chapter before I eventually decided three months into overeating it to just skip the chapter and move forward has George RR Martin points out there there is no grades the morality of the characters in Lord of the Rings the closest thing you get to that is this story in the silmarillion about the unbreakable vow regarding the recovery and Vengeance on the thieves of the silmarillion which led to elrond's capture where he apparently developed Stockholm Syndrome and when Gimli suggest that the Council of elrond make an unbreakable vow elrond says in the most Elvish Highborn booshwazee way f*** no but the best writing is not necessarily the most creative writing

[@wanderingwizard1361]

​@@leeroberts4850 You don't have any periods in your rant. You probably should be fair and recognize that you didn't have the attention span to give Lord of the Rings a fair shot. If you're not a reader who can handle slower paced work, that's completely fair, but to that extent you can't judge those types of works in terms of whether the writing is good.

[@20080934]

who would you say were the bad brights?

[@DouglasHPlumb]

Generally I don't like Pinker but this is great.

[@martinhasson4942]

Wow! This is another 4 years ago " Now I'm really worried about the Twins!"

[@Sherlika_Gregori]

Interesting the example he used of Smarties box and pencils. This is used in Simon Baron-Cohen's book Mindblindness to give one example how autistic people are mindlind (which I disagree, actually).

[@williammcenaney9393]

In "Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace," Williams and Colomb shorten a 199-word passage to 51 words. So the unintended hypocrisy made me laugh aloud because they quoted the long passage from "The Elements of Style" where Strunk and White exclaim "Omit needless words."

[@koutoubyavision4738]

And SEO telling you people have a hard time understanding passive tense