I live in New York, so I've never seen this show before, but it seems like one worth watching. This Gary Marcus interview was interesting. I will definitely be picking up a copy of Kluge.

When the video ends, at the bottom, in the related video links there is an interview with Moby on the same program. If you have 12min check it out cuz it's pretty good.

Moby is one of my favorite musical artists and I agree with most of his ideas (political or otherwise). However I disagree with what he said about Ralph Nader in this interview.

Sounds very interesting. I think the host was pretty much a bozo but the author was very interesting. I'll listen to the Moby interview when I can, too (your comment about Ralph Nader makes me curious.)

For a minute, before I loaded the video, I thought this was about the work of Alexandre Kluge. But, alas, no. Quality topic nonetheless.

Kluge missed a major point about evolution (or, rather, builds a strawman and shatters it). Even moderate understanding of evolution suffices to understand that optimum development is not the way evolution works.

jillbryant2003: "I think the host was pretty much a bozo..."

I kind of got that same impression from the first video i watched, but have since changed my opinion. Since my last posting, I've googled "The Hour", which is the name of the show, and found many videos on YouTube.

It's basically an interview show, but differs from most interview shows that I know (at least the US based, non-political shows) because it actually goes into some depth and allows for a conversation.

You can also find interviews with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins from this show, on YouTube.

Okay - I'll give him another chance :) He certainly has interesting guests.

Kluge missed a major point about evolution (or, rather, builds a strawman and shatters it).

Glad someone else noticed the trademark Gary Marcus strawman approach. Having been on a conference panel with him once and talked to him about optimality in a cognitive science context, I can tell you that the framework he's currently on a kick against is that of Bayesian statistical modeling. As a research strategy, BSM tries to find what the mathematically optimal inference would be for a data set, given some set of assumptions about prior expectations and a formalism about how each inferred hypothesis generates data. You can then compare the models to human performance and look at the systematic deviations to help you reexamine your assumptions. Nowhere is it stated that "humans are optimal".

It's not that Marcus doesn't have some valid points about the limitations of Bayesian modeling, but the points he does have are hardly unacknowledged by those who use the framework.

Eh.

Colin and Mkrate - I'm not sure I understand the objection. That he says humans aren't optimal and you're saying no one said they were? As a layman, I have to say I never thought in those terms but I do think we are so unendingly cleverly made that I think it never really occurred to me to think was this the optimal way? (although, as a female, I have thought I would've liked some input into the monthly issues.) Perhaps the problem is Marcus is only good for someone who knows nothing :)

If you have some other recommendations, that'd be great, too.