I agree. I wasn't ever a math nerd, I don't flap my hands or take things literally, and I never recited train schedules. But those are the people affected who get all the attention!

Comment 12 by aikidokkagirl :

I find the stereotypes applied to people with aspergers very irritating.

So wait, have these bacteria reproduced in 86 million years? Or are they the same lives? I wasn't clear on that.

Who here remembers the 1996 PSAs shown in the US that had the "You're Worth Waiting For" tagline? They always portrayed the girls as victims and the guys as manipulative. One ends with a girl with a baby, saying, "I should have told him 'no.'" Another has images of a girl dying in a hospital. There's a voiceover of a guy saying, "If you don't sleep with me, it means you don't love me," and "I'm not going to get you pregnant, honey," and a very phony sounding, "I love you!"

Julie

He'd better be back in NYC so I can give him another drawing! ;)

From The Undead, a book I am reading, on pages 329-330:

"I know, I probably pick on poor Richard Dawkins too much, but it is hard not to. He's such a nasty little pill. I agree with much of what he writes, but he exploits real scientists' work without giving adequate credit until years later. He wraps himself in the mantle of Darwin but appears to ignore his ideas. And it is hard to accept as a Darwinist a man who needed three wives to produce a single offspring. Reproduction is where natural selection really counts. Consider Michael Behe, the intelligent-design proponent and polar opposite of Dawkins. He has nine children. One wonders who is more Darwinian and who will ultimately win the evolutionary struggle. Darwin himself had ten children."

Seriously?????

Comment 161 by Richard Dawkins :

Comment 160 by guwest :

Great programme and who was the left wing commentator who thought Dawkins' work led to Thatcher's election, as mentioned in it?

The following is from A Devil's Chaplain

I should be allowed a personal word here because I am tired of being identified with a vicious politics of ruthless competitiveness: accused of advancing selfishness as a way of life. Soon after Mrs Thatcher’s election victory of 1979, Professor Steven Rose wrote, in New Scientist, as follows:

I am not implying that Saatchi and Saatchi engaged a team of sociobiologists to write the Thatcher scripts, nor even that certain Oxford and Sussex dons are beginning to rejoice at this practical expression of the simple truths of selfish genery they have been struggling to convey to us. The coincidence of fashionable theory with political events is messier than that. I do believe though, that when the history of the move to the right of the late 1970s comes to be written, from law and order to monetarism and to the (more contradictory) attack on statism, then the switch in scientific fashion, if only from group to kin selection models in evolutionary theory, will come to be seen as part of the tide which has rolled the Thatcherites and their concept of a fixed, 19th century competitive and xenophobic human nature into power.

The ‘Sussex don’ was John Maynard Smith, and he gave the apt reply in a letter to the next issue of New Scientist: What should we have done, fiddled the equations?

Ha, nobody has ever let him hear the end of that.

Comment 115 by papa lazaru :

45:20. Nice shorts Richard.

So, how was it? Was this the special where Richard talks about his recent DNA test?

You're still missing my point. If better social skills led to more intelligence, then why aren't people on the autism spectrum generally dumb? That's what I'm asking about.

Comment 13 by Stafford Gordon :

InYourFaceNewYorker; your point is fascinating.

Perhaps our natural empathy for one another plays a role in nurturing individuals with such difficulties, because the trade off is that society can benefit from their gifts.

I don't know, but it's worth thinking about.

That's not my point. My point is shouldn't people on the autism spectrum theoretically be less intelligent than their neurotypical peers?

Comment 6 by papa lazaru :

Comment 5 by papa lazaru :

Comment 1 by InYourFaceNewYorker :

This is really interesting but one thing I do wonder about is this: What about people on the autism spectrum who have savant-like abilities at math, music, art, science, etc, but have no clue about basic social skills? I am interested to know how such a brain profile was "allowed" by evolution if it was social interaction that put selection pressures that resulted in the smartest people and the biggest brains. Ideas anyone?

But these people do contribute to society through their ideas. Society's structures. The fact that we value their input and are able to perpetuate their ideas through language and writing. It sort of skews the genera idea of brute-force natural selection. Who'd want to live in a society govern by it :)

The actual disabilities are just like anything else. Undesirable characteristics or genetic flaws sometimes slip through the net, just like good characteristics can be wasted. Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but it's not a black & white situation, although the outcome is (you either make it or you don't).

This is really interesting but one thing I do wonder about is this: What about people on the autism spectrum who have savant-like abilities at math, music, art, science, etc, but have no clue about basic social skills? I am interested to know how such a brain profile was "allowed" by evolution if it was social interaction that put selection pressures that resulted in the smartest people and the biggest brains. Ideas anyone?

Ah, an Armenian huh?

Anyway good interview!

I wish Dr. Kevorkian could be resurrected and put on this show. He really had an incredible mind. In fact, the documentary about him (yes, there was a documentary; I am not talking about the Al Pacino movie) should be called A Beautiful Mind! Sadly, that title has been taken for a movie about another crazy genius! :)

Julie

Please, somebody cap this and put it on YouTube!

Don't give them so much credit.

Comment 6 by mmurray :

Comment 5 by InYourFaceNewYorker :

What was the species Richard was referring to that comes close to our level of intelligence?

Catholics ?

Michael

What was the species Richard was referring to that comes close to our level of intelligence? Aren't there several? All the other great apes, dolphins, whales, and elephants?

Julie

Comment 27 by Richard Dawkins : Scott then gets her to read aloud the relevant passage from Leviticus and she then completely changes her tune, saying that homosexuality is worse than slavery. That's right: homosexuality is WORSE than slavery. Why? Because the Bible condemns homosexuality and (as she has just that minute learned from Scott) it doesn't condemn slavery.

I'm sure everyone has seen this:

http://www.religionwtf.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/13934_243754645759_692985759_4355079_282614_n.jpg

"RICHARD! RICHARD! RICHARD!" Awesome.

Richard, you have mentioned many times that thinking that the Earth is 6000 years old is the same as believing that the distance from NYC to San Francisco is 28 feet (I actually got 21 feet; I used 3000 as the distance between NYC to San Francisco). I did the math in terms of the age of the universe rather than the age of the earth (again, using 3000 miles as the distance from NYC to San Francisco). Thinking that the universe is 6000 years old is equivalent to believing that the distance from NYC to San Francisco is 7 feet. I guess then North America could easily fit into my apartment! :)

Julie

I just stumbled upon this thread. What does everybody think of the claims that our ancestors were egalitarian and that territoriality did not come around until after the agricultural revolution?

Is this video available anywhere?

I picked up a copy from the library and am almost finished with it. All I can say is... wow... I hate the word "conspiracy" because it's so loaded, but that's exactly what this is!

Julie

Here's something I've wondered about. Forgive me for another Dr. Jack Kevorkian reference but... well... he's up there on my heroes list alongside Richard Dawkins!

Just imagine for a second that Dr. Kevorkian was 35 and had looked like a movie star when he started his euthanasia crusade. Instead, when he started he was 62, had Doc-from-Back-to-the-Future-eyes, and was old and wrinkly. When he was convicted in his last trial, perhaps more people would have demanded his release than actually did. I could imagine teen girls and young women going, "Awww! He's so sweet! He wants to ease suffering!" I suspect that even the weird things he said and did (just watch You Don't Know Jack or the documentary Kevorkian and you'll see what I mean) would have been brushed off. Maybe even the judge would have been more lenient in her sentencing. Hell, maybe if he had a common last name, like Smith than a last name that sounds, well, morbid, would have changed the outcome. What does everyone think?

Julie

Just started listening to the audiobook. This sounds like it's going to be a great book.

My unconscious bias confession:

I worked at a summer camp. There was a black kid who had some behavior problems. Another counselor pointed out that we focused on him because he was black and large. He pointed out that a short white kid, who had some behavior problems too, wasn't getting discussed as much. I realized he was right and my consciousness was raised. Later, however, it was becoming increasingly obvious that the black kid had more significant behavior problems (we had to send him home; he started getting into physical fights whereas the white kid didn't). However, the important thing is that in the beginning when we had this discussion the black kid's behaviors seemed more obvious to us because of his color and large build.

Raising your consciousness is good!

Julie

Let us know when it's up!

No. I'M a bit in your face. How DARE anybody take that title from me? ;)

Comment 1 by ZIwxBeheld :

A little bit in-your-face, but no less true. The unsubtlety spoils it, though.

Where did you see this?

Comment 8 by Sjoerd Westenborg :

Most comments under the original article speak of outrage. Some go off topic and discuss the Bible, Koran and atheism. All fine.

Then this comment by Islamic man came up. I think I died a little inside.

Please Americans do not judge. Us Muslims and believers of Islam do things the Islamic way and the Holy book guides us everyday on how to live a moral and faithful life. This may be confusion to non believers, but assure you that if you were Muslim, marrying your rapist makes total sense. Americans are not of our faith and therefore ignorant of what is right and wrong. May Allah forgive this woman of committing this un-Islamic and coward like act.

There's a page on Facebook called "Not Having My State Vaginally Probe Me."

Good point!

Comment 85 by BenS :

Comment 79 by InYourFaceNewYorker : As for the crash helmet... I wonder what the point is for applying such laws to adults. There should definitely be laws for children wearing helmets, but if an adult has no qualms about putting his head at risk and is willing to accept the possible consequences, then that's his right.

Julie

This:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

If you were to get distracted whilst driving and accidentally knock over a motorcyclist at five mph who banged his head on the curb and died, you're in trouble. If he was wearing a helmet it would likely have been a slight knock and a bit of a dazed look for a few minutes. If he's not, that crack against the curb could be fatal. Now, quite apart from the emotional distress you'd suffer knowing you killed someone, the legal repercussions would be much severe.

The guy wearing a turban gets exemption from the law, the other party in the accident gets none. Makes no sense at all.

I'd like to wear a pendant of Jack Kevorkian's suicide machine around my neck. ;)

Comment 43 by Richard Dawkins :

Comment 41 by drumdaddy :

It would be useful if we could make it compulsory for all Christians to wear a crucifix. This will be useful in identifying candidates for remedial education.

Surprisingly, I have known non-Christian women who wear a crucifix pendant because they think it is decorative. Who was it said you might as well wear a tasteful little gallows or guillotine or electric chair? Or how about a nice firing-squad necklace?

Richard

Post-Columbine my mother, a high school teacher, had a student from a Sikh family. His father had a lot of sense and told his kid, "You'll wear the dagger in spirit," and did not seek any privileged exceptions for the no-weapons-in-school rule.

As for the crash helmet... I wonder what the point is for applying such laws to adults. There should definitely be laws for children wearing helmets, but if an adult has no qualms about putting his head at risk and is willing to accept the possible consequences, then that's his right.

Julie

Comment 28 by Richard Dawkins :

Sikhs claim that they are obliged by a religious ruling to carry a dagger, the kirpan. In many countries this religious 'requirement' is the basis of an exemption from the law against carrying an offensive weapon, a law that everyone else has to obey. In Britain, a leading Sikh lawyer has argued that children should be exempt from school rules against bringing a dagger to school, because to prevent them is an infringement of the children's right to practise their religion (he should have said the religion of their parents, of course, but let that pass). Sikh men are 'required' by a religious ruling to wear a turban. The laws of many countries respect this by exempting Sikh motor cyclists from the obligation to wear a crash helmet.

Bad Richard for not coming to NYC this spring! Bad, bad, bad!