Stephen Jay Gould Puns

a gentle reminder that, however which way your attitudes towards work lie, please don't let your worth be dictated by those who see you as nothing more than an exploitable resource. live your one life. love your one life.

Thoughtful academics with a gift for explaining complex topics and elevating discussions towards universal questions of human concern.

I am already familiar with Dawkins, Pinker, Degrasse-Tyson, Peterson, Harris, and the Weinstein brothers and do not particularly care for them.

Just started reading ever since Darwin by S J Gould. The fourth essay “Darwin’s Untimely Burial” is quite confusing to me. I’ve seen reviews of the book that it can be quite confusing at times but it might just be I didn’t focus well cuz I’m not the best reader.

Anyways the point of the chapter is to rebuttal Bethells claims that the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ is a tautology because fittest in this context is simply defined as living long enough to reproduce. So the phrase means “survival of the survivors” Gould argues against this point but I don’t really understand what his argument is. Anyone have a concise description of the argument in layman’s terms?

A great explanation of sudden extinction and environmental change, and how it can affect even the most perfect of specimens. I strongly recommend the book to anyone interested in Biology, Evolutionary Biology, or/and Paleontology.

To me, this is what psychedelics are all about: revealing oneself through the deconstruction of symbols that edify one's existence :)

I read the book. I found it super impressive when I read it (mid 90's) and didn't think for a minute that it might have been dishonest. I've heard Sam say that it was but never heard him back up the claim. Has he done so?

I remember that Gould attacked the concept of the IQ test as irredeemably flawed and I held that opinion as central to my understanding of people ("there's no smart people. Just people's interests that make them knowledgeable") but have recently been told that scientific consensus has it that IQ is an objectively measurable quality that can definitively separated from circumstance and effort. 'G', right?

But I didn't read the book skeptically. What did I miss that proves Murray was right? And what evidence is there to back up the accusation of dishonesty?

While I'm at it, why does he level the same accusation at Glenn Greenwald?

EDIT: I'm on 0 votes right now. Fair enough. But if we can't answer this question as a community, shouldn't we upvote this so Sam might address it directly? Isn't this how we get his attention?

Up until recently, I was disinterested in Stephen Jay Gould. I decided I should read one of his books, but there are so many. In particular I would like insights on evolutionary theory.

>Much criticism of @jordanbpeterson is driven by jealousy, as happened to Sagan, Gould, @RichardDawkins @neiltyson & anyone intellectuals deem getting "too much" attention. Plus: prominent targets are more tempting to aim at because they elevate the critic in the process.

https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/961373689735364608

IMO, Michael Shermer has truly lost it. Is this a recent turn of events for him, or was he really always this way?

I saw this in /r/quotes and happened to think it fit the theme here. Discuss or remove, as you like.

"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops."

-Stephen Jay Gould