Text only | Text with Images

Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Two vast and trunkless legs of stone => Topic started by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 04, 2011, 04:47:59 PM

Title: "If you could pass the guacamole, that would be AWESOME!"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 04, 2011, 04:47:59 PM
This is a great RSA talk by Steven Pinker on Language as A Window Into Human Nature. The sketch style animation is a very nice touch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU
Title: Re: "If you could pass the guacamole, that would be AWESOME!"
Post by: hooplala on April 04, 2011, 06:51:29 PM
I like it.

And now you know it, and I know you know it, and you know that I know you know it.  It's out there.
Title: Re: "If you could pass the guacamole, that would be AWESOME!"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 04, 2011, 06:57:51 PM
 :lulz:

Title: Re: "If you could pass the guacamole, that would be AWESOME!"
Post by: Jasper on April 04, 2011, 10:14:04 PM
Pretty cool.
Title: Re: "If you could pass the guacamole, that would be AWESOME!"
Post by: Rumckle on April 04, 2011, 10:41:00 PM
I watched that a couple of months ago, it is fairly interesting, however I disagreed with one of his examples, the bribe one. I'd think that the main reason the bribe isn't made too obvious is for legal deniability in case the cope doesn't take it.
Title: Re: "If you could pass the guacamole, that would be AWESOME!"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 04, 2011, 10:55:30 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on April 04, 2011, 10:41:00 PM
I watched that a couple of months ago, it is fairly interesting, however I disagreed with one of his examples, the bribe one. I'd think that the main reason the bribe isn't made too obvious is for legal deniability in case the cope doesn't take it.

The relationship between the cop and the driver is a Dominance one, because he may need legal deniability should the cop not take the bribe. Thus he uses the indirect speech act. If they were in a communality relationship, he would be comfortable saying "Meh, here's fifty bucks dude..." :)
Title: Re: "If you could pass the guacamole, that would be AWESOME!"
Post by: Fredfredly ⊂(◉‿◉)つ on April 04, 2011, 10:56:18 PM
well i liked it, but i thought you said RZA, so i was disappoint RZA wasnt the dude presenting it  :lol:
Title: Re: "If you could pass the guacamole, that would be AWESOME!"
Post by: Rumckle on April 05, 2011, 12:53:37 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 04, 2011, 10:55:30 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on April 04, 2011, 10:41:00 PM
I watched that a couple of months ago, it is fairly interesting, however I disagreed with one of his examples, the bribe one. I'd think that the main reason the bribe isn't made too obvious is for legal deniability in case the cope doesn't take it.

The relationship between the cop and the driver is a Dominance one, because he may need legal deniability should the cop not take the bribe. Thus he uses the indirect speech act. If they were in a communality relationship, he would be comfortable saying "Meh, here's fifty bucks dude..." :)

Yes but, in the others it is social deniability and he doesn't state the difference, legal deniability is an entire different kettle of fish. Unless I'm misremembering, I'll have to watch it again when I get a chance.
Title: Re: "If you could pass the guacamole, that would be AWESOME!"
Post by: Requia ☣ on April 05, 2011, 03:58:53 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 04, 2011, 04:47:59 PM
This is a great RSA talk by Steven Pinker on Language as A Window Into Human Nature. The sketch style animation is a very nice touch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU

Can't youtube at the moment, but why is Pinker giving cryptography talks?  Or am I totally not understanding what this is.

Edit: nevermind.
Text only | Text with Images