After we menÂtioned Book Mooch last week, one of our faithÂful readÂers alertÂed us to anothÂer site — PaperBackSwap.com. PaperÂBackÂSwap is reportÂedÂly easÂiÂer to use than Book Mooch, and the actuÂal process of exchangÂing books runs more smoothÂly. MeanÂwhile, despite the site’s name, you can swap both paperÂback and hardÂback books there. In case you missed our last piece, the idea of these sites is simÂple. You can trade your old books for ones you haven’t read. The only cost is the postage for shipÂping. Not a bad deal. Thanks MagÂgie for the tip.
Today, ElizÂaÂbeth Green MusÂselÂman has penned a guest blog post that you’re bound to enjoy. ElizÂaÂbeth is a proÂfesÂsor and hisÂtoÂriÂan who works on the hisÂtoÂry of sciÂence, and she has recentÂly launched a thoughtÂful podÂcast on the hisÂtoÂry of sciÂence, medÂiÂcine, and techÂnolÂoÂgy. It’s called “The MissÂing Link” (iTunes — Feed — Web Site). Below, she highÂlights for us a range of podÂcasts that will appeal to everyÂday sciÂence enthuÂsiÂasts. (If you’re interÂestÂed in doing some guest blogÂging, drop us a line.) Thanks ElizÂaÂbeth and take it away:
These can seem like dark days for those peoÂple who love sciÂence but who neiÂther speÂcialÂize in the field nor can quite stomÂach the gee-whiz facÂtor that plagues so much popÂuÂlar sciÂence writÂing and broadÂcastÂing. Now that Stephen Jay Gould is cavortÂing someÂwhere in the Beyond with Charles DarÂwin, and ever since the New York AcadÂeÂmy of SciÂences put the ax to its inspired magÂaÂzine The SciÂences, where is a levÂelÂheadÂed lover of the sciÂences to turn?
The podÂcast world has begun to develÂop a niche marÂket for just such lisÂtenÂers, that is, lisÂtenÂers who like their sciÂence relÂaÂtiveÂly non-techÂniÂcal but still high-mindÂed – lisÂtenÂers who think of sciÂence as a part of human culÂture, rather than an arcane temÂple. Not surÂprisÂingÂly, some of the best conÂtent comes from radio proÂgrams that have been re-released as podÂcasts. These include WNYC’s RadiÂoÂLab, an hour-long show whose seriÂous invesÂtiÂgaÂtions on a theme (such as sleep or morÂtalÂiÂty) take on an intriguÂingÂly funÂhouse qualÂiÂty through the program’s invenÂtive use of sound and the humorÂous interÂacÂtion between co-hosts Jad AbumÂrad and Robert KrulÂwich. NPR has also released Krulwich’s solo reports in podÂcast form as Hmmm… KrulÂwich on SciÂence.
AnothÂer longÂstandÂing NPR favorite, The Engines of Our IngeÂnuÂity, began broadÂcastÂing brief, thoughtÂful reflecÂtions on techÂnolÂoÂgy and culÂture in 1988. WritÂten and hostÂed by John LienÂhard, a retired proÂfesÂsor of mechanÂiÂcal engiÂneerÂing and hisÂtoÂry at the UniÂverÂsiÂty of HousÂton, the show now airs five days a week on 30 NPR affilÂiÂates in the U.S. The brief proÂgrams are also availÂable in podÂcast form.
On the othÂer side of the pond, the BBC 4’s long-runÂning, popÂuÂlar show, In Our Time, freÂquentÂly conÂsidÂers sciÂenÂtifÂic topÂics and can also be heard in podÂcast form. Most recentÂly, the proÂgram explored antiÂmatÂter. On each hour-long proÂgram the host, Melvyn Bragg, keeps a panÂel of three scholÂars movÂing at a pace that skirts neatÂly between brisk and conÂtemÂplaÂtive.
FinalÂly, sevÂerÂal podÂcasts proÂduced by indiÂvidÂuÂals have begun to appear, each of which conÂsidÂers sciÂence in conÂtext. ExplorÂing EnviÂronÂmenÂtal HisÂtoÂry feaÂtures Jan Oosthoek’s smart interÂviews with his felÂlow enviÂronÂmenÂtal hisÂtoÂriÂans and sciÂenÂtists, often focusÂing on how hisÂtorÂiÂcal study can point us toward stronger enviÂronÂmenÂtal polÂiÂcy soluÂtions. The most recent episode conÂsidÂers ArcÂtic cliÂmate conÂdiÂtions both today and in the LitÂtle Ice Age. My own monthÂly podÂcast, The MissÂing Link, conÂsidÂers those fasÂciÂnatÂing moments in the hisÂtoÂry of sciÂence, medÂiÂcine, and techÂnolÂoÂgy, when our intelÂlecÂtuÂal and techÂniÂcal prowess rubs up against our very human dreams and failÂings. The most recent episode visÂits Berlin, GerÂmany, where the grueÂsomeÂness of a patholÂoÂgy museum’s colÂlecÂtion masks a cenÂturies-long hisÂtoÂry of both inequitable medÂical care and brilÂliant microÂbiÂoÂlogÂiÂcal research. The proÂgram also disÂcussÂes the Berlin PhonoÂgram Archive, one of the first attempts to record the world’s music for posÂterÂiÂty, designed origÂiÂnalÂly to demonÂstrate the evoÂluÂtionÂary scale of primÂiÂtive to civÂiÂlized humanÂiÂty.
This video takes you on a fairÂly amazÂing tour of the great porÂtraits of women in WestÂern art. It moves from da VinÂci to PicasÂso, and, along the way, the porÂtraits seamÂlessÂly morph one into anothÂer. This morÂphÂing allows you to see how artisÂtic styles changed over time, and also how the human face has been artisÂtiÂcalÂly treatÂed durÂing difÂferÂent periÂods. Watch the video below, which is accomÂpaÂnied by Bach’s Suite No. 1 perÂformed by Yo-Yo Ma. For inforÂmaÂtion on the paintÂings covÂered in the clip, click here. And also see the relatÂed video, Women in Film.
EarÂliÂer this year, Michael Wesch, an assisÂtant proÂfesÂsor of culÂturÂal anthroÂpolÂoÂgy at Kansas State, released a smart video that immeÂdiÂateÂly went viral on the interÂnet. It was called Web 2.0… the Machine is Us/ing Us and it clevÂerÂly explained the often vague conÂcept of Web 2.0 and why it matÂters. Now Wesch has launched anothÂer video under the title InforÂmaÂtion R/evolution (see below). InfluÂenced by the recent book, EveryÂthing Is MisÂcelÂlaÂneous: The PowÂer of the New DigÂiÂtal DisÂorÂder, Wesch’s new clip offers a creÂative look at how the digÂiÂtal age funÂdaÂmenÂtalÂly changes our relaÂtionÂship to inforÂmaÂtion and how inforÂmaÂtion gets orgaÂnized. Have a look.
Human behavÂior is notoÂriÂousÂly comÂplex, and there’s been no shortÂage of psyÂcholÂoÂgists and psyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal theÂoÂries venÂturÂing to explain what makes us tick. Why do we get irraÂtionalÂly jealÂous? Or have midlife crises? Why do we overeat to our own detriÂment? Why do we find ourÂselves often strongÂly attractÂed to cerÂtain physÂiÂcal traits? NumerÂous theÂoÂries abound, but few are perÂhaps as novÂel and thought-proÂvokÂing as those sugÂgestÂed by a new book with a long title: Why BeauÂtiÂful PeoÂple Have More DaughÂters: From DatÂing, ShopÂping, and PrayÂing to Going to War and BecomÂing a BilÂlionÂaire — Two EvoÂluÂtionÂary PsyÂcholÂoÂgists Explain Why We Do What We Do. WritÂten by Satoshi KanazaÂwa and Alan S. Miller, the book finds answers not in ids, egos and superÂegos, but in the evoÂluÂtion of the human brain. WritÂten in snapÂpy prose, their arguÂment is essenÂtialÂly that our behavÂior — our wants, desires and impulsÂes — are overÂwhelmÂingÂly shaped by the way our brain evolved 10,000+ years ago, and one conÂseÂquence is that our ancesÂtral brain is often respondÂing to a world long ago disÂapÂpeared, not the modÂern, fast-changÂing world in which we live. This disÂconÂnect can lead us to be out of sync, to act in ways that seem inexÂplicÂaÂble or counter-proÂducÂtive, even to ourÂselves. These arguÂments belong to new field called “evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy,” and we were forÂtuÂnate to interÂview Satoshi KanazaÂwa (LonÂdon School of EcoÂnomÂics) and delve furÂther into evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy and the (someÂtimes dispirÂitÂing) issues it raisÂes. Have a read, check out the book, and also see the relatÂed piece that the FreakoÂnomÂics folks recentÂly did on this book. Please note that the full interÂview conÂtinÂues after the jump.
DC: In a nutÂshell, what is “evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy”? (e.g. when did the field emerge? what are the basic tenets/principles of this school of thinkÂing?)
SK: EvoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy is the appliÂcaÂtion of evoÂluÂtionÂary biolÂoÂgy to human cogÂniÂtion and behavÂior. For more than a cenÂtuÂry, zoolÂoÂgists have sucÂcessÂfulÂly used the uniÂfyÂing prinÂciÂples of evoÂluÂtion to explain the body and behavÂior of all aniÂmal species in nature, except for humans. SciÂenÂtists held a speÂcial place for humans and made an excepÂtion for them.
In 1992, a group of psyÂcholÂoÂgists and anthroÂpolÂoÂgists simÂply asked, “Why not? Why can’t we use the prinÂciÂples of evoÂluÂtion to explain human behavÂior as well?” And the new sciÂence of evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy was born. It is premised on two grand genÂerÂalÂizaÂtions. First, all the laws of evoÂluÂtion by natÂurÂal and sexÂuÂal selecÂtion hold for humans as much as they do for all species in nature. SecÂond, the conÂtents of the human brain have been shaped by the forces of evoÂluÂtion just as much as every othÂer part of human body. In othÂer words, humans are aniÂmals, and as such they have been shaped by evoÂluÂtionÂary forces just as othÂer aniÂmals have been.
DC: EvoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy porÂtrays us as havÂing impulsÂes that took form long ago, in a very pre-modÂern conÂtext (say, 10,000 years ago), and now these impulsÂes are someÂtimes rather ill-adaptÂed to our conÂtemÂpoÂrary world. For examÂple, in a food-scarce enviÂronÂment, we became proÂgrammed to eat whenÂevÂer we can; now, with food aboundÂing in many parts of the world, this impulse creÂates the conÂdiÂtions for an obeÂsiÂty epiÂdemÂic. GivÂen that our world will likeÂly conÂtinÂue changÂing at a rapid pace, are we doomed to have our impulsÂes conÂstantÂly playÂing catch up with our enviÂronÂment, and does that potenÂtialÂly doom us as a species?
SK: In fact, we’re not playÂing catch up; we’re stuck. For any evoÂluÂtionÂary change to take place, the enviÂronÂment has to remain more or less conÂstant for many genÂerÂaÂtions, so that evoÂluÂtion can select the traits that are adapÂtive and elimÂiÂnate those that are not. When the enviÂronÂment underÂgoes rapid change withÂin the space of a genÂerÂaÂtion or two, as it has been for the last couÂple of milÂlenÂnia, if not more, then evoÂluÂtion can’t hapÂpen because nature can’t deterÂmine which traits to select and which to elimÂiÂnate. So they remain at a standÂstill. Our brain (and the rest of our body) are essenÂtialÂly frozen in time — stuck in the Stone Age.
One examÂple of this is that when we watch a scary movie, we get scared, and when we watch porn we get turned on. We cry when someÂone dies in a movie. Our brain canÂnot tell the difÂferÂence between what’s simÂuÂlatÂed and what’s real, because this disÂtincÂtion didn’t exist in the Stone Age.
DC: One conÂcluÂsion from your book is that we’re someÂthing of a prisÂonÂer to our hard-wiring. Yes, there is some room for us to maneuÂver. But, in the end, our evolved nature takes over. If all of this holds true, is there room in our world for utopiÂan (or even mildÂly optiÂmistic) politÂiÂcal moveÂments that look to refashÂion how humans behave and interÂact with one anothÂer? Or does this sciÂence sugÂgest that Edmund Burke was on to someÂthing?
SK: Steven Pinker, in his 2002 book The Blank Slate, makes a very conÂvincÂing arguÂment that all UtopiÂan visions, whether they be motiÂvatÂed by left-wing ideÂolÂoÂgy or right-wing ideÂolÂoÂgy, are doomed to failÂure, because they all assume that human nature is malÂleable. EvoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgists have disÂcovÂered that the human mind is not a blank slate, a tabÂuÂla rasa; humans have innate bioÂlogÂiÂcal nature as much as any othÂer species does, and it is not malÂleable. Paul H. Rubin’s 2002 book DarÂwinÂian PolÂiÂtics: The EvoÂluÂtionÂary OriÂgin of FreeÂdom gives an evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal account of why Burke and clasÂsiÂcal libÂerÂals (who are today called libÂerÂtarÂiÂans) may have been right.
As a sciÂenÂtist, I am not interÂestÂed in UtopiÂan visions (or any othÂer visions for sociÂety). But it seems to me that, if you want to change the world sucÂcessÂfulÂly, you canÂnot start from false premisÂes. Any such attempt is bound to fail. If you build a house on top of a lake on the assumpÂtion that water is solÂid, it will inevitably colÂlapse and sink to the botÂtom of the lake, but if you recÂogÂnize the fluÂid nature of water, you can build a sucÂcessÂful houseÂboat. A houseÂboat may not be as good as a genÂuine house built on ground, but it’s betÂter than a colÂlapsed house on the botÂtom of the lake. A vision for sociÂety based on an evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal underÂstandÂing of human nature at least has a fightÂing chance, which is a much betÂter than any UtopiÂan vision based on the assumpÂtion that human nature is infiÂniteÂly malÂleable.
LisÂten closeÂly. What’s that you hear? It’s the sound of AmerÂiÂcan office proÂducÂtivÂiÂty takÂing it on the chin.
YesÂterÂday, “The DaiÂly Show with Jon StewÂart” put its entire video archive online (see www.thedailyshow.com). The archive goes back eight years. It’s comÂpleteÂly free. And it’s all highÂly searchÂable. To get a feel for what this video trove offers, you can spend some time watchÂing these clasÂsic DaiÂly Show moments.
As you’d expect, the video archive includes no shortÂage of funÂny bits, includÂing when Stephen ColÂbert announced his presÂiÂdenÂtial bid earÂliÂer this week (see below), and when the show riffed on Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize last week. But, mixed in, you’ll also find some of the show’s more seriÂous moments. Take, for examÂple, when Jon StewÂart asked John McCain the hard-nosed quesÂtions about the Iraq war (hereand here) that most jourÂnalÂists won’t, and also when the show first returned to broadÂcastÂing after 9–11. It’s all here. And apparÂentÂly a simÂiÂlar site for The ColÂbert Report will be launched someÂwhere down the line.
Note to ReadÂers: If you want to share good culÂturÂal conÂtent (podÂcasts, videos, etc.) with your felÂlow readÂers, feel free to drop us a line. We’re always hapÂpy to get your sugÂgesÂtions, and, of course, we’ll gladÂly give you all the credÂit for them.
If you can’t hear the audio, simÂply slide the litÂtle bar immeÂdiÂateÂly above to the right.
SpeakÂing of Einstein–have you ever wantÂed to explain the world on a napÂkin? The Edge, self-described as “an online colÂlecÂtive of deep thinkers,” has teamed up with the SerÂpenÂtine Gallery in LonÂdon to parÂticÂiÂpate in a month-long ExperÂiÂment Marathon. The SerÂpenÂtine has been askÂing leadÂing sciÂenÂtists and thinkers “What Is Your ForÂmuÂla?” and the Edge is now hostÂing the fasÂciÂnatÂing answers on their site. Rickard Dawkins, BriÂan Eno and Benoit ManÂdelÂbrot are just a few of the conÂtribÂuÂtors.
SpeakÂing at a conÂferÂence on sciÂence, reliÂgion and phiÂlosÂoÂphy in 1941, Albert EinÂstein famousÂly said that “sciÂence withÂout reliÂgion is lame; reliÂgion withÂout sciÂence is blind.” EinÂstein, a GerÂman-born Jew, conÂsidÂered himÂself reliÂgious. But what he meant by reliÂgion was not straightÂforÂward. The first episode of a two-part podÂcast called EinÂstein and the Mind of God (iTunes — MP3 — Web Site) tries to sort out EinÂstein’s reliÂgious senÂsiÂbilÂiÂty and how it squares with his sciÂenÂtifÂic thinkÂing. For EinÂstein, reliÂgion conÂsistÂed of a belief, not in a perÂsonÂal God, but a uniÂverÂsal spirÂit that manÂiÂfests itself in nature. And it was the task of physics to make sense of nature, of God’s uniÂverse. Or, so that is how it’s explained by FreeÂman Dyson, a famed theÂoÂretÂiÂcal physiÂcist who appears on the show. In the secÂond part, the podÂcast turns to look at EinÂstein’s ethics (iTunes — MP3 — Web Site). Although not withÂout perÂsonÂal flaws (he often fell short in his personal/domestic life), EinÂstein had a strong moral sense informed by his JewÂish upbringÂing. He saw sciÂenÂtists havÂing a deep moral obligÂaÂtion to sociÂety; he took strong posiÂtions against war (except when Hitler came along); he opposed racial disÂcrimÂiÂnaÂtion and lamentÂed the plight of African-AmerÂiÂcans well before the civÂil rights moveÂment; and he laudÂed reliÂgious leadÂers’ efforts to use non-vioÂlent action to oppose immoral conÂdiÂtions. Each of these podÂcasts runs around 53 minÂutes in length, and they form part of a largÂer radio/podcast series called SpeakÂing of Faith (iTunes — Feed — Web Site), which is issued by AmerÂiÂcan PubÂlic Media.
This is just a quick note to let you know that we “re-orged” the AudioÂbook PodÂcast ColÂlecÂtion. The list, which had become a bit unwieldy, is now broÂken down by genre: Literature/Fiction, NonÂficÂtion, and PoetÂry. And, withÂin these catÂeÂgories, the texts are orgaÂnized by the author’s name. HopeÂfulÂly this all makes the colÂlecÂtion easÂiÂer to use. Check it out.
This is a great conÂcept & serÂvice for our readÂers. BookÂMooch is an online book swapÂping web site that has 45,000 memÂbers and 750,000 books in its invenÂtoÂry. What goes on here is fairÂly straightÂforÂward. Users can give away books they’ve read in exchange for books they want to read — all for no monÂey, othÂer than the shipÂping costs. That makes it easy to supÂport your readÂing habit, and it saves a few trees. The inner-workÂings of the book swapÂping are explained here and here. Have a look.
We're hoping to rely on loyal readers, rather than erratic ads. Please click the Donate button and support Open Culture. You can use Paypal, Venmo, Patreon, even Crypto! We thank you!
Open Culture scours the web for the best educational media. We find the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & educational videos you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.
