December 5, 2021

"I have 5 different colleagues who were in tight with him."


I decided to blog this with that quote in the headline before I listened to the end of the clip. The quote caught my ear because who were the colleagues? And "in tight" is such an evocative phrase when we're talking about not just friendship but sexual activity.

I finally listened through and heard how that sentence continued: "I have 5 different colleagues who were in tight with him — to my tremendous disadvantage because it meant that people would snap pictures and there I would be in a crowd with this sex criminal, one of the worst things that's ever happened to me."

16 comments:

rehajm said...

I have 5 different colleagues who were in tight with him...

Pinker claims he quickly realized Epstein was a fraud. I suspect that's true and the statement is not an after the fact Pinker is using to appear superior. If you're even vaguely familiar with academically oriented investing and the members of that community Epstein doesn't resemble what he tried to represent...

I can appreciate why politicians were close with Epstein but the fact Pinker knows so may academics close to him is surprising to me. I know why they would choose to be close to him, but still...

I think Pinker is wrong to continue to view his Epstein related academic peers as intellectual elites. They are stupid fuck ups and should be regarded as such...

tim maguire said...

I found it interesting the way he discusses Epstein’s manipulation by flattery. He wines and dines scientists because finance guys are interested in science (keeping up with the sciences is key to understanding technology trends). Although neither my wife nor I are doctors, we both work in healthcare, on the policy side. When COVID came along, epidemiologists, who toiled their whole careers in anonymity, were suddenly rock stars. They are most important people in the room. Everyone wants to know what they think. And when COVID’s beaten, they will go back to toiling in anonymity.

Of course that’s going to affect their judgment. It’s only human nature.

Howard said...

That's the least interesting part of that podcast. Pinker described Epstein as a poser who seemed ADHD and not very bright. Also, Pinker thinks Jeffrey did kill himself. Joe pushes back and Pinker defends his anti-conspiracy thought process. Nice back and forth.

Lem said...

I hope Pinker was there to talk about the universities woke wars. The Epstein story died along with him. Lady Maxwell is not revealing anything new to the story.

rhhardin said...

He's not being rational.

Lurker21 said...

Pinker is such a versatile guy. Now he's doing impressions on the radio, like Rich Little or Frank Gorshin?

Pinker is Harvard. Epstein gave money to Harvard, so they would have mutual acquaintances.

Pinker is associated with "evolutionary psychology." Epstein was funding "evolutionary dynamics," which seems to involve more math.

Rogan is the odd man out.

He seems very unevolved.

Maybe he's a Yale man.

Achilles said...

Pinker is more worried that Epstein was pretending to be as smart as the professors.

Don't ever think you are as smart as a professor or intellectual.

There is a reason millions of people die when intellectuals take over.

Josephbleau said...

I think the nation deserves that the wheat be separated from the chaff, we need to know who was in on it and who was guilty by association. Otherwise we judge only by character, to Bill Clinton’s detriment. It does not help a sociopath to know that his crimes will be hidden until 20 years after his death or some such.

Temujin said...

Who knew there are people out there who 'collect' scientists to hang around with?

Jupiter said...

Guy has led a charmed life.

Saint Croix said...

Interesting that he thought he was a phony and not as smart as he pretends to be. Like the problem with Epstein is that he wasn't smart enough. And he throws out "A.D.D." like that's relevant to having sex with underage girls.

Does he think corruption and evil correlates with stupid? I've always thought corrupt, evil and stupid is not very dangerous (at least not on a macro level, plenty dangerous at the personal level). But corrupt, evil and smart is really, really dangerous.

He's trying to say that Epstein was a phony and didn't belong with all those intelligent people who were with him. But you should flip it around and all those intelligent people shouldn't be with Epstein. That is if you suppose intelligence leads to goodness. I think it's a loose correlation at best.

Valentine Smith said...

Pinker has to distance himself from Epstein with as strongly worded language as he can. He provided Dershowitz with a letter interpreting the meaning of the federal law regarding the enticement of minors. It resulted in a plea deal that excluded that statute.

Richard Aubrey said...

I suppose it helps to have a spidey sense. Some folks would be repelled, for no objective reason they could explain, by guys like this. I've never been in that situation exactly or even close--so far as I know about where I might have gone--but I do recall being repelled for no reason I could explain.
Gavin de Becker, in "The Gift of Fear" goes into it more narrowly, aimed at women. We take in information subliminally, process it subliminally, and the result comes bubbling up as a hunch, as vibes, as a feeling. It's like your eighth grade math teacher tells you that you got the right answer but he wants to see your work. And you don't recall how you did it.
Examine your vibes; they might be telling you something.

That said, a guy who's got ADD and sloshes money around might not seem sufficiently tightly organized as to be a threat and if he's cheerfully buying another round and the other folks seem happy.... You're hanging with the other folks which, it appears, is a problem. And if he's not quite as smart as you and the others but wants to pick your brain, perhaps there's a subliminal portion of...praise, worship, positive regard, appealing to pride.

EDKH

Narr said...

I see Pinker is still doing Hair Club for Scientists. (My hair is very similar but I find long hair too hot for comfort.)

Pinker strikes me as painfully straight-arrow, and evidence that at least some prominent established academics of his type don't desire affiliation with pretentious check-writers like Epstein.

I don't understand Valentine Smith's comment. Pinker provided -Dershowitz- with legal advice?



rcocean said...

What's so surprising? Epstein:

1) Had underage girls
2) Had Money
3) was smart.

I'm sure all these "academics" were happy to "Schmooze" (there's a code word for you) with him. The real question is what was Epstein really after. And why was he "Schmoozing" with them. Instead of say, fucking underage girls on his island or talking to other rich guys with power.

Narr said...

@rcocean917PM makes a good point, but the sequence is off. Should be,

Epstein:

1) was smart*
2) got money
3) got underage girls.

Hasn't access to youngsters been a traditional reason to be or get rich and powerful? (For myself, I don't really respect a man who goes into politics or entertainment w/o expectation of getting a lot of [legal] quim--but I digress.)

As for what Epstein wanted from the schmoozing eggheads, it was a reputation for intelligence to explain his money IMO.

*Smart enough to get a lot of money and live the highlife as he conceived it.