Linguist Daniel Everett Rejects Universal Grammar After Amazon Studies

PowerfulJRE

Fieldwork with the Pirahã tribe disproves Noam Chomsky's theory of universal grammar because their language completely lacks recursive structures, numbers, and color terms.

AI-assisted summary of Joe Rogan Experience #2547 - Daniel Everett — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2026-09-13

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by PowerfulJRE on August 27, 2026, this episode of the Joe Rogan Experience features linguist and college professor Dr. Daniel Everett. According to the show description, Everett is the author of several books, including "Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle" and "How Language Began: The Story of Humanity’s Greatest Invention."

## TL;DR Linguist Daniel Everett details his transformation from a devout Christian missionary living with the Amazonian Pirahã tribe into an atheist whose field research directly challenged Noam Chomsky's foundational linguistic theories. He explores how the Pirahã's unique language lacks recursive structures, numbers, and abstract color terms, operating instead on a strict empirical standard of direct observation that reshaped his own worldview. Everett also discusses ancient hominin language origins, jungle survival perils, unique Amazonian cultural customs like ritual cannibalism among the Wariʼ, and the tragic rate at which global indigenous languages are disappearing.

## Atmosphere & style The conversation carries a captivating, intellectual, and deeply introspective vibe, blending wild jungle survival stories with rigorous academic debate. Everett speaks with the relaxed, candid authority of a veteran field researcher, reflecting openly on intense personal health crises, loss of faith, and intense academic feuds. Rogan acts as an engaged and curious dynamic partner, allowing the narrative to effortlessly shift between shocking indigenous customs, humor, and profound reflections on human nature.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=0s) Before becoming a linguist and Bible translator in the Amazon, Daniel Everett underwent rigorous jungle survival training, including a 10-day solo exam with minimal tools. - [12:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=772s) The Pirahã operate under a strict system of immediate communal food sharing rather than storing food, expressing this philosophy as 'preserving it in the belly of my brother.' - [17:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1070s) The Pirahã language is a unique isolate with tonal distinctions that lacks abstract color terms, relative directions, numbers, and recursive grammatical structures. - [29:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1770s) Everett's findings on Pirahã grammar directly challenged Noam Chomsky's theory of Universal Grammar, sparking a decade-long scientific and personal feud. - [36:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=2204s) Research into Homo erectus seafaring and ancient joinery suggests early human ancestors possessed speech and maritime technology far earlier than previously thought. - [53:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=3220s) The Pirahã demand direct empirical observation as evidence, which ultimately led to Everett failing to convert any tribe members to Christianity. - [01:07:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4020s) Influenced by the Pirahã's empirical standards and peaceful culture, Everett abandoned his fundamentalist Christian faith and became an atheist. - [01:09:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4173s) Despite extreme environmental hazards, the Pirahã exhibit high levels of happiness and emotional well-being within their hunter-gatherer subsistence lifestyle. - [01:41:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6088s) In Pirahã culture, raising one's voice or displaying anger is viewed as a major social transgression, with family harmony prioritized over retribution. - [01:48:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6532s) The Pirahã's extraordinary navigation and tracking skills rely on lifelong hyper-developed pattern recognition rather than superior physical attributes. - [01:50:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6630s) Modern processed foods, sugarcane, and alcohol introduced by external traders have caused severe health declines among the Pirahã, including dental decay and liver disease. - [01:34:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5656s) Loss of faith resulted in Everett's immediate divorce and excommunication from the missionary community after decades of living and working in the Amazon. - [02:12:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7935s) The Wariʼ tribe of the Amazon historically practiced ritual endocannibalism to honor deceased relatives until Brazilian authorities ended the tradition in 1962. - [02:30:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9005s) Languages around the world are dying at an alarming rate, taking with them vast, irreplaceable systems of ecological knowledge and cultural taxonomies.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1s) Becoming a Missionary & Jungle Survival School

Joe Rogan opens the conversation with linguist and former Christian missionary Daniel Everett, highlighting his incredible journey from being a street minister to living in the deep Amazonian jungle with the Pirahã people for roughly eight years over a forty-year span. Rogan asks how Everett transitioned into religion in the first place, given his non-religious background. Everett explains that in 1968, he was standing outside a Jimi Hendrix concert trying to sell LSD to buy a ticket. He approached a straight-laced classmate and his sister, whom Everett recognized from high school. Although she hated the concert, Everett was smitten and tracked her down at school the following Monday, sitting with her during lunch. He discovered that she had grown up in Brazil as a missionary’s daughter. Intrigued by the idea of avoiding a mundane American life and living in the Amazon, Everett quickly threw himself into the faith, going to Bible college, becoming an ordained Wesleyan minister, and preaching on street corners.

Everett’s sudden conversion stunned his father, a hard-drinking construction worker who viewed getting loaded and roughhousing as essential rites of passage. His father was baffled that his son went from dodging the police to attending church every Sunday. After four years of Bible college, Everett joined a missionary organization to become a Bible translator and underwent grueling training in Chiapas, Mexico. The final exam involved a ten-day solo survival exercise in the jungle with no food or supplies, equipped with only a machete and a film canister containing 10–15 matches. He had to forage for edible plants, construct a shelter, harvest water from jungle vines, and improvise fishing lines using sharpened sticks to catch three-inch fish.

- Everett spent a total of roughly 8 years living directly with the Pirahã in the jungle, maintained a 40-year research relationship, and ultimately became an atheist. - His conversion began in 1968 outside a Jimi Hendrix concert while trying to sell LSD. - His father would have preferred him getting loaded over joining a church, seeing drinking and manual labor as part of the "masculine experience." - During survival training in Chiapas, Everett was dropped into the jungle for about 10 days with no food, relying on water from cut vines and keeping a fire burning continuously.

[09:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=544s) Encounters with Predators: Jaguars and Poison Darts

During his survival test in Chiapas, Everett kept a fire burning constantly to ward off wildlife, recounting a tense night when he heard heavy footsteps around his camp and frantically blew on the embers to reignite the flames. Reflecting on that night, he acknowledges that his machete would have been utterly useless against a full-grown jaguar, which can weigh up to 400 pounds and often hunts in pairs. While the Pirahã occasionally hunt or defend themselves against jaguars using bows and arrows, Everett describes another Amazonian tribe he spent time with—the Banawá—who hunt using seven-to-eight-foot blowguns and poisoned weapons.

Everett recalls a harrowing story told by a Banawá hunter who encountered a deer fleeing wildly through a jungle clearing, followed closely by an aggressive jaguar. The jaguar bypassed the deer and pounced directly onto the hunter. The man held his heavy blowgun out horizontally to shield his face while the jaguar’s hind claws tore the flesh off his legs. When the jaguar jumped back to flank him, the hunter managed to stab and then shoot the cat with a poisoned arrow. Though the hunter collapsed and lay infected in the jungle for two days before his family rescued him, he survived. Everett notes that he has actually eaten jaguar meat alongside the Pirahã after they killed a rabid or starving jaguar that threatened a village woman. He jokes that the meat was incredibly tough and sinewy, but tolerable if doused in Tabasco sauce.

> "I reached a clearing in the jungle and I saw a deer come out running straight for him. And at first he was happy... then he realized deer don't just come running out of the jungle towards people. And then right behind the deer came a jaguar."

- Jaguars are the third-largest cat species in the world, reaching up to 400 lbs, and are known to hunt in pairs. - The Banawá tribe uses 7-to-8-foot blowguns with poisoned arrows and darts for hunting and self-defense. - Everett always carried a bottle of Tabasco sauce in the field to make tough, sinewy meats like jaguar or monkey palatable.

[12:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=772s) Food Sharing and the Impact of Modern Dams

Unlike many indigenous groups that smoke, salt, or dry meat to preserve it, the Pirahã do not store food for future consumption. Everett explains that when he asked a Pirahã hunter why he didn't preserve his excess meat, the man simply replied, "I preserve it in the belly of my brother." The culture relies on total communal sharing: whoever slaughters game shares it with the rest of the village, operating under the expectation that others will return the favor when they have a successful hunt. This system worked effortlessly for centuries because the Pirahã lived in complete isolation along a 300-mile stretch of the Maici River, a tributary that spans a couple hundred yards across and reaches depths of 75 to 100 feet during the rainy season.

However, this delicate balance has been severely disrupted in recent years. The Brazilian government sanctioned the construction of hydroelectric dams on nearby river systems about ten years ago, altering water flows and drastically reducing the fish population in the Maici River. For the first time in their estimated 300-year history along the river, the Pirahã are unable to maintain protein self-sufficiency. Driven by hunger, some Pirahã have resorted to raiding local Brazilian farms for food, resulting in deadly conflicts. Everett highlights the tragedy of a self-sustaining tribe being devastated by distant infrastructure built for electricity—a concept the Pirahã barely comprehend beyond seeing Everett's gas generator powering lightbulbs.

- The Pirahã reside along a 300-mile stretch of the Maici River in the Amazon basin. - In the rainy season, the Maici River can reach depths of 75 to 100 feet. - Hydroelectric dams constructed approximately 10 years ago altered regional ecosystems, starving the river of fish and making the Pirahã non-self-sufficient for the first time in 300 years.

[15:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=951s) Ecological Crisis and the Struggle of Amazonian Tribes

The construction of hydroelectric dams and changing weather patterns along Amazonian tributaries—such as the Maici River—have drastically disrupted local ecosystems and Indigenous communities. Even far downstream from these dams, water levels drop precipitously during the dry season. Historically, the river bottom remained hidden even at its lowest point, but in recent years, sections of the river have dried up to the point where people can simply walk across. This severe reduction in water volume has driven away fish populations and forced jungle game to migrate far from traditional hunting grounds.

As a result, Indigenous communities like the Pirahã face unprecedented hardship. Traditional hunting trips that once required walking just a mile into the forest now demand treks of many miles, often yielding no game at all. This environmental strain is tearing communities apart, forcing families to abandon their ancestral territories and relocate to larger rivers. However, these moves push them into proximity with mainstream Brazilian society, disrupting their traditional way of life. While tribes historically avoided urban integration—choosing instead to live in jungle settlements on the peripheries of cities—the absolute scarcity of food is now driving them to learn Portuguese and integrate into regional towns out of sheer survival.

- **Maici River changes:** Historically deep year-round, but recent dam-related water reductions allow people to walk across during dry seasons. - **Hunting displacement:** Hunters must travel many miles into the jungle instead of their usual one-mile radius, often returning empty-handed. - **Shift in integration:** Prior to recent years, the Pirahã lived isolated in the surrounding jungle; severe food shortages now force them into nearby towns to learn Portuguese.

---

[17:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1070s) The Initial Mission and Historical Accounts of the Pirahã Language

In 1977, linguist and missionary Daniel Everett first journeyed to the Amazon basin under the auspices of the Wycliffe Bible Translators. His original objective was not purely academic; he was tasked with translating the Bible, planting a church, and converting the tribe to Christianity. When presented with assignment options in New Guinea, Mexico, or Brazil, Everett selected the Pirahã in Brazil specifically because two previous missionary teams had failed to decode their language, which is an isolate unlinked to any other known living language family.

``` 1784: Early Portuguese explorers make initial contact; record basic descriptive notes. 1821: German explorer compiles the first extensive vocabulary list without formal linguistic training. 1920: Founder of Brazilian anthropology (German-born naturalized Brazilian) collects a larger, highly accurate word list. 1977: Daniel Everett arrives with no prior knowledge of the spoken language to begin field translation. ```

Despite historical contacts dating back to 1784, no comprehensive grammar or pronunciation guides existed when Everett arrived in December 1977. Early word lists collected by 19th- and 20th-century visitors lacked any representation of the language's tonal system, leaving Everett to figure out the phonetics and grammar entirely from scratch.

- **Wycliffe Bible Translators choices:** Offered field assignments in New Guinea, Mexico, or Brazil. - **Language classification:** Pirahã is a language isolate with no known living linguistic relatives. - **Tone distinction example:** In Pirahã, "friend" (*míi*) and "enemy" (*máagí*) are distinguished purely by pitch contours, which can be whistled. - **Accidental profanity:** The word for "me" (*ti*) and an explicit vulgarity (*tí*) differ only by tone, leading to frequent early misunderstandings for non-native speakers.

---

[22:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1345s) First Contact, Field Dynamics, and Jungle Survival

Upon arriving at the remote village via a bush plane that landed directly on the river, Everett was forced to establish immediate rapport without any shared spoken language. Armed only with a notepad, a pen, and a few trade goods, he began using basic monolingual field methods. He would point at objects like sticks, pronounce the English term, write down the Pirahã response, and then perform simple actions—such as dropping the stick—to transcribe verbs and sentence structures as the villagers described what occurred.

Everett's integration into the community was aided by his distinct appearance and strategic gifts. As a white man with bright red hair, he was an immediate object of curiosity. To build goodwill, he handed out candy to children and distributed a traditional nine-foot roll of cured tobacco wrapped in latex, slicing off portions for adults who assisted his research. He also traded canned food for fresh fish, living directly inside the village footprint.

"I took in a big long horn of tobacco... probably 8 feet or 9 feet long, just rolled up tight tobacco wrapped in latex. You just cut it off for them and they chew it."

Initially staying for a 10-day exploratory visit, Everett returned shortly after with his wife and three young children (aged nine, six, and one) to reside in the jungle for a full year. The transition brought severe medical peril. His son contracted meningitis, both daughters contracted malaria, and Everett himself caught all three South American strains of malaria simultaneously—a diagnosis later verified at University Hospital in San Diego. During one severe crisis, his wife's weight plummeted from 115 pounds to 76 pounds due to malaria. Lacking emergency transport, Everett borrowed a narrow aluminum canoe powered by a 6-horsepower Johnson outboard engine from a visiting Catholic priest to evacuate his dying family downriver to medical care.

- **Family age at arrival:** Daughters aged 9 and 6, son aged 1; the older daughters learned fluent Pirahã rapidly. - **Medical complications:** Family experienced meningitis, typhoid fever, snake encounters, and severe malaria relapses. - **Malaria treatment regime:** Included Daraprim, primaquine, and straight quinine, which induced days of severe physical distress before recovery.

---

[29:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1766s) Unique Features of the Pirahã Language and the Recursion Debate

Living among the Pirahã continuously for three to six months every year between 1977 and 2013 completely reshaped Everett's religious and linguistic worldview. As he attempted to translate the Greek New Testament into Pirahã, he ran into profound cultural and linguistic barriers. Abstract concepts central to Western thought and Biblical narratives were entirely absent from the language. The Pirahã have no words for abstract colors, no relative spatial directions like "left" or "right," and no concept or word for a supreme deity. Furthermore, they possess no numbers or counting system whatsoever, utilizing only general quantifiers indicating relative amounts like "a lot" or "a little."

These radical linguistic gaps sparked major scientific debates. While psycho-linguists and cognitive scientists conducted field experiments to test the absence of counting and color terms, Everett's most influential and contentious claim targeted Noam Chomsky's theory of Universal Grammar. Chomsky had long asserted that all human languages share a fundamental, innate structural rule known as **recursion**—the ability to embed linguistic units (such as noun phrases or clauses) inside other units of the same type indefinitely (e.g., "John said that Bill spoke").

Everett's empirical field research demonstrated that Pirahã completely lacks recursive structures. Sentences in Pirahã are simple, discrete assertions without embedded sub-clauses or complex compounding, directly challenging the core premise that recursion is an obligatory genetic blueprint for all human speech.

- **Linguistic absences:** No numerical terms, no counting, no color words, no left/right directional terms, and no concept of God. - **Definition of recursion:** The embedding of a phrase or sentence inside another structure of the same category (e.g., combining "truck" and "driver" into "truck driver," or embedding clauses). - **Chomskyan debate:** Everett argued that Chomsky generalized recursion as a universal property of human language without analyzing non-Western, isolated languages like Pirahã.

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of this part of the conversation between Joe Rogan and Daniel Everett.

---

[32:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1970s) The Backlash from Noam Chomsky and the Linguistic Establishment

Daniel Everett explains that Noam Chomsky's universal grammar theory contained core structural principles that strictly required recursion. When Everett published his research stating that the Pirahã language completely lacks this feature—and noted that other languages also lack it—it was directly interpreted as telling the most famous linguist in history that he was wrong. Chomsky had previously been dubbed "the most important intellectual alive" by *The New York Times*, so the linguistic community viewed a relative unknown challenging him as problematic, erratic, or heretical. Joe Rogan expresses disgust at this academic gatekeeping and appeal to authority, pointing out that intellectuals ought to be excited when a discovery challenges established paradigms.

Everett notes that while some linguists were thrilled by the data, many others were deeply angered. Rogan questions how anyone could claim to know the universal rules governing all languages when there are approximately 8,000 spoken languages on Earth. Everett confirms that linguists only have solid data on roughly 1,200 of them. Rogan brings up the Indigenous Australian tribes (referred to locally as "mobs"), where communities separated by only 30 kilometers speak completely unwritten, distinct languages that neighbors cannot understand. Everett agrees, adding that Australian fieldwork has uncovered unique linguistic properties unlike anything else known to science, making it wildly premature to write universal laws for all human speech.

- Out of roughly 8,000 distinct world languages, linguists only possess detailed data on about 1,200. - A follower of Chomsky in Brazil wrote to FUNAI (the Brazilian Indigenous Affairs Agency) accusing Everett of being a racist who was "trying to reduce the Pirahã to primates." - Everett countered that humans are all primates, but noted the circular logic used against him: if Chomsky claims all human languages have recursion, and Everett claims Pirahã lacks it, the critic's logic dictates that either Chomsky is wrong or the Pirahã are not human. - Everett emphasizes that among scientists who do not make large salaries, ego serves as the primary currency and medium of exchange.

---

[36:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=2204s) Deep History, Homo erectus, and the Oldest Wooden Structure

The discussion shifts to cognitive capability in human ancestors. Everett argues against the long-held belief that *Homo erectus* lacked speech, pointing to their extensive maritime travel as evidence of complex communication. Ocean barriers never stopped *Homo erectus*, leading Everett to co-author a paper on the subject with an archaeologist from the University of Liverpool specializing in *Homo erectus*. Shortly after publishing, that same archaeologist excavated a 500,000-year-old wooden structure in Zambia—the oldest known wooden structure in human history. The build features interlocking joinery that architects confirmed was remarkably sophisticated for constructing walkways or shelters.

Rogan mentions his conversation with researcher Michael Button regarding evidence that early hominids were seafaring as far back as one million years ago. Everett cites work by Australian archaeologist Robert Bednarik, who conducted experimental trials testing how much language is required for a group to build a sea-worthy vessel capable of carrying food, water, and around 20 people. Because *Homo erectus* artifacts are found on islands that were never connected to the mainland, accidental strandings on natural rafts cannot account for their populations; deliberate group colonization was required. Rogan notes a NASA study calculating that a minimum of 500 individuals is necessary to establish a genetically viable colony on a new planet without severe inbreeding.

- Modern human brain capacity averages roughly 1,200 cc for men and 950 to 1,000 cc for women; because intelligence does not differ between the sexes, absolute brain volume is not the sole determinant of intellectual capability. - *Homo erectus* brain volume ranged from 950 to 1,000 cc, falling directly within the standard range of modern human females. - Brain volume in skulls is historically measured by filling the cranial cavity with sand and measuring the volume of the sand. - The 500,000-year-old Zambian wooden structure made by *Homo erectus* featured shaped, interlocking timber joints.

---

[41:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=2470s) Academic Character Assassination vs. Empirical Testing

Everett recounts the intense media storm and professional hostility following his publication in *Current Anthropology*. At the time, he was working at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology alongside Svante Pääbo (who later won the Nobel Prize for decoding the Neanderthal genome). A reporter from *Der Spiegel* interviewed Everett after visiting Pääbo, triggering widespread press coverage, including a profile in *The New Yorker*. Everett expected fellow scientists to respond with skeptical empirical tests—predicting what data should or should not appear if recursion were absent. Instead, critics resorted to personal attacks, calling him a liar who was merely seeking media attention.

When independent cognitive scientists from top institutions—including MIT's Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Stanford's Department of Psychology, and Columbia University—conducted rigorous experiments in the Amazon, their findings repeatedly validated Everett's claims. Despite this, diehard Chomsky loyalists dismissed the independent researchers as simply being "anti-Chomsky" and ignored the experimental results. Everett even offered to debate Chomsky publicly at the Linguistic Society of America to settle the matter, but Chomsky declined.

- Chomsky gave interviews to Brazilian and Spanish media calling Everett a "100% charlatan" and claiming his linguistic contributions amounted to "nothing, nothing, nothing." - Everett invited Chomsky to travel with him directly to the Pirahã village to ask any linguistic questions he wanted; Chomsky refused, stating, "I don't do field work." - Rogan jokes about Chomsky avoiding tropical diseases like "typho-fever," malaria, snakebites, and jaguar attacks. - Rogan and Everett contrast Chomsky's early brilliant works—such as *Aspects of the Theory of Syntax* and *American Power and the New Mandarins* (both published in 1965), as well as his classic debates against William F. Buckley Jr.—with his later dogmatic behavior, stance on COVID-19 vaccines, and personal ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

</ElicitationsGroup>

[048:48] Noam Chomsky, Ego, and the Recursion Controversy

Daniel Everett recalls how Noam Chomsky initially served as a mentor and key academic supporter, writing letters of recommendation for Everett's first U.S. job as well as his tenure promotion at the University of Pittsburgh. Joe Rogan quips that Everett only "became an idiot" in Chomsky’s eyes the moment he dared to publicly disagree with him. Everett explains that after decades of debate with Chomsky and his followers, he can predict every objection before it is asked: "I'll be surprised if anybody asks me a question that I haven't heard from Chomsky."

When Everett first discussed Pirahã syntax with Chomsky in 1984 as a visiting scholar at MIT—noting that the language appeared to lack recursion—Chomsky was initially intrigued, casually pondering the consequences over coffee at his blackboard. However, once Chomsky later declared recursion to be a universal, mandatory component of human language, Everett's empirical counterevidence transformed him into an academic persona non grata. Rogan laments how fragile egos can corrupt even the sharpest minds, to which Everett shares his long-standing conclusion: "Intelligence is no antidote for stupidity."

``` - Recommendations: Chomsky wrote Everett's career recommendations for his first U.S. post and his tenure application at the University of Pittsburgh. - 1984 MIT Visit: Everett's office was adjacent to Chomsky's when he first raised the absence of recursion in Pirahã. - The Feud in Pop Culture: Author Tom Wolfe highlighted the academic feud between Everett and Chomsky in his final book, *The Kingdom of Speech*, comparing it to the historic debate between Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. - Personal Estrangement: After years of easy access in Cambridge, Chomsky stopped meeting with Everett, eventually calling him a "charlatan" in a São Paulo newspaper interview. ```

---

[053:40] Failed Conversion and the Pirahã Standard of Evidence

Rogan asks Everett how many Pirahã people he managed to convert to Christianity during his decades as a missionary. Everett responds with a flat "NOBODY." The Pirahã completely rejected Christian proselytizing because the claims failed to satisfy their rigorous, direct-observation standard of evidence.

> "They have a high standard of evidence and I didn't meet that standard."

---

[055:08] Forest Beings, "Fastmouths," and the Fluidity of Identity

The Pirahã categorize entities into distinct groups beyond standard human classifications. They viewed Everett—a white American—as a distinct entity without blood who aged unnaturally slow. Because Everett had graying hair at age 45, the Pirahã assumed he was on the verge of death, describing him with the phrase *máo-ápaití* ("almost about to fall to the ground").

Among the entities inhabiting the forest are "fastmouths"—beings described as speaking in high-pitched falsetto voices, remaining completely naked, and acting with extreme sexual promiscuity. Everett shares a bizarre incident where a visiting German journalist from *Geo* magazine asked to see a fastmouth. A Pirahã man walked into the jungle, stripped off his clothes, and returned speaking in falsetto while aggressively attempting to hump the uncomfortable reporter. Upon putting his clothes back on, the man completely denied any memory of the encounter.

``` - Human Classifications: The Pirahã distinguish between fellow Pirahã, Brazilians, and white Americans (whom they historically associated with bloodless, long-lived beings). - Fastmouth Characteristics: Identified by a high falsetto voice, total nudity, refusal to wear clothes, and sexually aggressive behavior. - Perception of Reality: The boundary between performance, ritual, and literal manifestation is liminal; the Pirahã view the individual as temporarily replaced by the entity rather than possessed. ```

---

[059:52] Name Changes, Jaguar Attacks, and Identity Over Time

The Pirahã deny the concept of a static identity over time. Adults frequently abandon their names after unusual or traumatic life experiences—such as surviving an encounter in the forest—and adopt entirely new ones, completely disowning actions committed under their former identities. Everett recalls returning to the village after six months away and addressing his long-time language teacher by his former name, *Eaíbí* ("blood eater"). The teacher ignored him entirely until Everett used his newly adopted name, *Kapali*.

Rogan asks about physical dangers in the Amazon, including jaguar attacks. Everett notes that while no one has been killed by a jaguar in his nearly 50 years of visiting, many have been ambushed. In one instance, a hunter carrying a 60-pound basket of Brazil nuts via a tumpline was pounced on from a tree; the jaguar caught the basket instead of the man. The hunter immediately shot the jaguar with an arrow, explaining that once a jaguar is struck, it focuses entirely on removing the arrow, allowing the hunter to land multiple lethal shots.

``` - Name Fluidity: Names are abandoned when they become "rotten" (spoiled like bad food) or after significant life events; past actions belong exclusively to the former name. - Honorific Naming: On one occasion, a fierce Pirahã hunter gave Everett his deceased father's name after declaring that Everett was old enough to match his late father's generation. - Survival Tactics: Pirahã hunters use heavy bows to shoot jaguars, taking advantage of the animal's instinct to pull out the first arrow before firing subsequent shots. ```

[01:04:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=3872s) Attempting to Convert the Pirahã with the Gospel of Luke

Daniel Everett shares that his native name among the Pirahã has remained the same for roughly 15 years, though names can shift depending on which village or individual one encounters. When he first arrived in the Amazonian jungle, the Pirahã population was under 200 people. Over the course of the two decades that he and his wife provided basic medical assistance, the population grew to between 700 and 800.

Despite his initial mission as a Christian missionary, Everett's efforts to convert the tribe yielded bizarre and unexpected results. While working on linguistic analysis and translating the Gospel of Luke, he showed the villagers film strips featuring a Westernized, bearded portrayal of Jesus. Because the Pirahã made no distinction between drawings, photographs, and historical reality, they presumed Everett was showing them a real man he had personally seen.

That night across the river, chaos broke out in the neighboring village, filled with shouting, screaming, and laughing. When Everett's informant returned the following morning, he nonchalantly explained that "Jesus came to our village." According to the villager, Jesus was attempting to assault the women with a three-foot-long penis. Everett explains that this surreal fabrication was the tribe's unique way of outright rejecting the religious narrative, an outcome no amount of Bible college training could have prepared him for.

- Population growth: The Pirahã grew from under 200 to around 700–800 people, largely aided by 20 years of medical care from Everett and his wife. - Visual interpretation: The Pirahã did not distinguish between drawings, film strips, and photographs, assuming any image was a direct visual depiction of a living person the speaker had met.

[01:07:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4020s) Loss of Faith and the Direct Empirical Standard

The Pirahã's rejection of Christianity was rooted in a strict demand for immediate, firsthand evidence. Villagers frequently pressed Everett with direct questions about Jesus's appearance, asking whether he was brown-skinned like them or white like Everett. When Everett admitted that he had never seen Jesus, nor had his father or anyone else alive because Jesus lived thousands of years ago, the Pirahã immediately shut down the conversation. They argued that if Everett had never personally witnessed Jesus, he had no business talking about him continuously, declaring, "We don't want to hear about this anymore."

This line of questioning struck a deep chord with Everett, who was a devout believer at the time. His gradual shift toward atheism was fueled both by his immersion in rigorous linguistic science and his profound respect for the Pirahã's intelligence. He realized that inside religious communities—much like closed academic circles—people surround themselves with like-minded believers until considering alternatives becomes impossible. Returning to the skepticism of his youth, Everett eventually admitted to the tribal men that he no longer believed the stories either, prompting them to laugh and announce, "Now you're like us."

- "You don't know anyone who's ever seen him, and you're just talking about him the whole time... We don't want to hear about this anymore." - The Pirahã observed that only Americans seemed to care about Jesus, noting they had never met a Brazilian who held those beliefs. - When Everett confessed his loss of faith, the men joked that they were never interested in Christianity anyway because Christians couldn't drink or sleep with other women.

[01:09:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4173s) The "Ultimate Zen Masters" and Skepticism of Miracles

Reflecting on what finally broke his faith, Everett notes that despite knowing devout Christians and top-tier missionaries, he had never met anyone as well-adjusted, content, or capable of coping with life as the Pirahã. He describes them as the "ultimate Zen masters." An MIT PhD student visiting the field once observed that they appeared to be the happiest people in the world, measuring their joy by how much of their day was spent laughing and smiling compared to any other culture.

Everett also found it increasingly difficult to reconcile scientific principles with religious claims. While he did not dismiss personal claims of spiritual healings, he noted their lack of statistical relevance and objective proof. He recalled a Bible school instructor pointing out that faith healers notoriously avoid attempting obvious physical impossibilities, such as regenerating lost limbs on amputees or raising the dead at cemeteries.

- Quality of life: Everett viewed the Pirahã as possessing a higher quality of spiritual peace and contentment than any Christians he had encountered. - Empirical standard: Everett concluded he could no longer urge the Pirahã to accept faith-based claims when their empirical objections were entirely logical.

[01:12:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4360s) Historical Records, Flood Myths, and the Limits of Science

Joe Rogan and Everett discuss how ancient religious texts often represent distorted documentations of actual historical events. Rogan brings up the apostle Paul, noting how shocked many people are to discover that Paul never met the living Jesus and derived his entire authority from a vision on the road to Damascus. They compare widespread ancient flood myths to historical records of actual geological catastrophes. Everett shares a childhood memory of driving through the mountains from Imperial Valley to San Diego, where his mother explained a line of white stones near the mountain tops as proof of Noah's flood.

While acknowledging that religious systems provide valuable moral scaffolding and produce extraordinarily kind individuals, Rogan points out the absurdity of taking ancient stories like Adam and Eve literally. Everett shifts the conversation to the limits of scientific knowledge, noting that even fields like paleoanthropology rely heavily on educated guesses. Until geneticist Svante Pääbo successfully decoded ancient hominin genomes—a feat previously thought impossible—debates over whether there were 20 distinct species of *Homo* or merely three (*Homo erectus*, Neanderthals, and *Homo sapiens*) were largely speculative.

- Historical Paul: Paul never met Jesus in person, claiming his authority through a vision on the road to Damascus. - Geological myths: Widespread flood narratives in ancient texts likely stem from real prehistoric natural disasters, later embellished with theological interpretations. - Paleoanthropology: The work of Svante Pääbo in ancient DNA changed the field, replacing pure speculation about early human species with hard genetic evidence.

[01:17:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4676s) Religious Dogma vs. Scientific Progress

The conversation shifts to the inherent contradiction of holding fundamentalist religious views while engaging in scientific inquiry. Everett highlights how living as a fundamentalist requires constant cognitive dissonance—believing in unrepeatable ancient miracles while demanding empirical proof for everything else in daily life.

Rogan points out that texts like the Bible explicitly condone human institution practices like slavery, which modern societies have rightfully rejected. Everett references Mark Twain's satirical writings on religion, specifically Twain's joke that religion began "when the first con man met the first sucker." He also recalls Twain's humorous critique of the Noah's Ark narrative, pointing out that Noah's family would have needed to be horribly infested with every disease germ in existence to preserve them for future generations, and questioning how animals instantly migrated from Mount Ararat to Australia.

- "Religion started when the first con man made the first sucker." — Mark Twain - Literal interpretations of ancient texts collapse when examined through basic geography, biology, and historical progress. - Science requires formulating good hypotheses, testing them rigorously, admitting errors, and discarding disproven ideas.

[01:19:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4771s) Religious Hypocrisy and the Hod Carrying Days

The discussion opens with Daniel Everett reflecting on how rigid religious doctrines often ignore historical and factual reality. While Joe Rogan notes that ancient flood stories—such as the *Epic of Gilgamesh* mirroring Noah's Ark—suggest some actual catastrophic historical event likely occurred, Everett points out the intellectual dishonesty of total dogmatism. When Everett was a Christian missionary, he used to tell believers that the strongest evidence for God should be a visibly transformed, moral life. If a person claims that Christ changed their life but continues to behave immorally, their testimony completely falls apart.

To illustrate this hypocrisy, Everett shares a vivid memory from 1968 when he was still in high school. Through his Christian missionary father-in-law, he got a union construction job in California as a hod carrier—which he describes as the hardest physical labor he ever performed in his life. The union wage was $8.25 an hour, a substantial sum at the time. However, his employer, a devout, church-going Christian contractor, explicitly told him that despite union rules, he was only going to pay him for four hours of work while forcing him to work eight. Seeing supposedly pious Christians cheat their workers and lie on tax forms deeply disillusioned Everett. He questioned why the Holy Spirit failed to make a tangible moral difference in these believers' lives compared to ordinary non-religious people living honest lives down the street.

- In 1968, union hod carriers earned $8.25 per hour, which was considered significant pay. - Everett's Christian boss evaded union wages by falsifying timesheets to pay four hours for eight hours of hard labor. - Everett notes that Jesus's commandments are harder to follow than Old Testament laws because they demand internal control over thoughts rather than just external actions.

---

[01:22:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4927s) The Pirahã: Happiness and the Subsistence Lifestyle

Turning to his field work in the Amazon, Everett describes the subsistence lifestyle of the Pirahã tribe, connecting it to psychological studies on human happiness and fulfillment. Rogan notes that modern societal stress, bills, and office jobs often lead to misery, whereas hunter-gatherers focus purely on immediate needs and community. Everett monitored the Pirahã's labor habits and calculated that hunters only work roughly 15 to 20 hours a week to sustain themselves—provided fish are plentiful. The rest of their time is spent lounging by the fire, telling jokes, and playing with their children.

This pure subsistence existence means the Pirahã do not preserve or store food; if they do not catch food on a given day, they simply go hungry. Rogan references Werner Herzog's documentary *Happy People: A Year in the Taiga*, which highlights a similar phenomenon among Siberian trappers who derive immense joy from living in harmony with nature. Everett mentions *The Grammar of Happiness*, a film produced about his work with the Pirahã by the Smithsonian and other institutions. The small documentary crew and visiting psychologists were consistently stunned by the tribe's profound peace and contentment—once they got past the brutal heat and primitive living conditions.

- Pirahã hunters work approximately 15 to 20 hours per week when food is abundant. - The Pirahã do not use outhouses; they simply walk ten feet into the bush. They use sticks, leaves, or corn cobs instead of toilet paper. - *The Grammar of Happiness* is the title of the documentary covering Everett's linguistic and anthropological work with the Pirahã.

---

[01:24:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5080s) Pain, Resilience, and Death in the Jungle

The Pirahã exhibit an extraordinary pragmatism toward death and physical suffering. When Everett asked them what happens after a person dies, they pointed to a dead monkey brought back for dinner and remarked, "He's dead. What else is there? We die." They construct no supernatural narratives to console themselves or assuage a fear of death. Living naked in a hazardous jungle environment, they frequently endure horrific injuries—including snakebites from bushmaster or jararaca pit vipers that rot away flesh, leaving legs looking like bare bone covered in thin skin.

Physical resilience is cultivated deliberately from childhood through a cultural practice they refer to as "wanting to be hard." Individuals will intentionally sleep less than needed or fast to condition their bodies for severe hardship. Everett recalls watching a woman calmly pull a wasp stinger out of her face mid-conversation without breaking her sentence; when asked if it hurt, she simply replied, "I'm not a baby." Children grow up tough, scooting around on their bare rear ends until their skin develops thick, solid calluses.

Despite their physical toughness, the Pirahã are remarkably gentle parents who never hit or discipline their children. Everett recalls a visiting guest who was kept awake by a crying baby and asked why the parents didn't slap the child to make it quiet down. Everett warned the man that if he ever laid a hand on a Pirahã child, the villagers would kill him on the spot.

- Bushmaster and jararaca snakebites cause severe tissue necrosis, often leaving victims with exposed bone and withered limbs. - Pirahã feet and rears develop thick, leather-like calluses from walking barefoot over thorns and scooting across rough ground. - "He wants to be hard" is a Pirahã expression describing deliberate self-hardening through sleep deprivation and fasting to build resilience.

---

[01:30:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5410s) Health, Diets, and the Intrusion of the Western World

Prior to environmental disruption along their rivers, roughly 70% of the Pirahã diet consisted of fish, supplemented by fresh water and jungle nuts. Historically, an average Pirahã man weighed around 155 pounds, possessed a 25-to-26-inch waist, and carried a mere 4% body fat. When Everett brought a dentist to the village 25 years ago to inspect every living tribe member, the dentist was disappointed to find zero cavities across the entire population.

However, Western contact drastically altered their health profile. When Brazilian government officials began distributing processed rice, community members began gaining weight from the unfamiliar starches. Later, sugarcane was introduced to their crops, driving cavity rates to nearly 100%. Processed sugar and soda ("sweet water") proved irresistibly addictive to people whose evolutionary history never prepared them for concentrated sweets. Everett recounts watching a native man trade a hand-woven basket for a large can of peaches in syrup and consume the entire contents in one sitting, while others would eat a whole kilogram (2.5 lbs) of pure table sugar with a spoon.

- Natural Pirahã physical metrics: ~155 lbs body weight, 25-26 inch waist, and ~4% body fat. - Initial dental survey revealed zero cavities across the entire tribe before sugarcane was introduced. - Introduced items like rice, sugarcane, soda, and tobacco created unprecedented health issues and addictions that did not exist in their native hunter-gatherer state.

---

[01:33:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5631s) [01:33:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5631s) The Beginnings of Everett's Deconversion

Rogan asks Everett to trace the step-by-step process of how he evolved from a devout Christian missionary attempting to convert the Pirahã into an atheist who abandoned his faith entirely. Everett explains that the transition was a long, painful journey involving both practical challenges and deep intellectual doubts. It was not an overnight realization, but a gradual breakdown of his theological framework that took place over several years living among people who had no conceptual need for his religion.

- The process of losing his faith took 5 to 6 years of intense internal questioning while living in the Amazon.

[01:34:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5656s) Losing Faith, Divorce, and Excommunication from Mission Life

Daniel Everett recounts his gradual departure from Christianity, which began in the early 1980s and culminated in a public declaration around 2001. His turning point came when he heard Christians describing military members sent to the Iraq War as "blessed peacemakers of the Gospel," an assertion he found unconscionable. He outlines the psychological progression of deconstruction: initial doubt is followed by desperate prayer—invoking the Apostle Thomas's cry, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief"—which leads to studying Christian apologetics. Finding those apologetic defenses deeply unsatisfying, he realized he could no longer pretend to hold beliefs he had lost.

When Everett finally confessed his loss of faith to his wife, the reaction was immediate and severe. She walked out of their home, leading to a swift divorce. In addition to losing his marriage, declaring his loss of belief stripped him of his livelihood as a Christian missionary. While his wife attributed all their marital friction to his declining faith, Everett notes that returning to secular interests—such as listening to Jimi Hendrix and rock music after years of abstinence, or drinking socially with Brazilian friends—were viewed by her as alarming signs of spiritual backsliding.

Everett reflects on a conversation with his atheist father, who once told him that religious people are constantly searching for exemptions to avoid doing the unpleasant things their religion demands. Everett compares the situation to the interplay between justice and mercy: people demand justice for others while begging for mercy for themselves. Ultimately, despite having graduated at the top of his class from Bible college and possessing deep knowledge of scripture, Everett decided he would no longer let a book govern his choices. When Christians attempt to reconvert him, he respectfully clarifies that while he knows the Bible thoroughly, it simply no longer works for him.

- Daniel Everett began doubting his faith around 1982–1983 and publicly announced his departure from Christianity in 2001. - His loss of faith resulted in an immediate divorce and the loss of his income as a missionary. - Everett graduated number one in his class from Bible school, which allows him to engage with Christian apologists on equal textual footing.

---

[01:38:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5888s) Morality, Conflict, and Banishment in Pirahã Culture

Joe Rogan points out how disorienting it must be to witness a thriving moral framework among people who have no concept of God, challenging the assumption that religion is necessary for morality. Everett illustrates the Pirahã's unique temperament with a story about a severe rainstorm in the Amazon. When a semi-nomadic Pirahã hut collapsed in the pouring rain, the occupants did not panic or become angry; instead, they burst into laughter, sought temporary shelter in neighboring huts or at Everett's home, and rebuilt the house the next day. The Pirahã maintain extreme emotional composure, viewing anger as the ultimate social transgression—there is no shouting or physical aggression against one another.

Everett highlights the absolute priority the Pirahã place on familial and community bonds over retribution through a tragic incident involving a dog. A Pirahã man got drunk on alcohol obtained from Brazilian traders and shot his brother's dog with a shotgun. Despite his deep grief over the loss of his pet, the brother refused to retaliate, stating: "I miss my dog, I love my dog, but I love my brother. I'm not going to hurt my brother. He was drunk and his head wasn't working." Everett emphasizes that while every Pirahã hunter possesses lethal marksmanship with a bow and arrow, they strictly distinguish between necessary hunting and unnecessary murder.

The ultimate punishment in Pirahã society is reserved for actions that pose an existential threat to the entire village, and that punishment is total banishment. Everett recounts an incident detailed in his book *Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes* (and his upcoming work *Born of the River*), where a young Pirahã man was bribed with alcohol and a shotgun by an outsider to murder a non-Pirahã man upstream. Recognizing that the murder would draw military or police retaliation upon the whole tribe, the village banished the young man into the jungle with no supplies, food, or community support. Deprived of communal survival, the young man died roughly two months later.

- The Pirahã consider anger and raising one's voice to be the closest equivalent to a concept of "sin." - Banishment is the maximum sentence in Pirahã culture, enforced only when an individual's actions endanger the survival of the group. - Daniel Everett's books detailing these events include *Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes* and *Born of the River*.

---

[01:42:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6151s) Navigating Jungle Perils and the Spirit World

Everett and Rogan discuss the harsh, violent atmosphere of the surrounding Amazon region, where non-indigenous river traders and riverfront residents routinely engage in lethal knife and gun fights. Everett recalls a situation where he threatened to punch a confrontational, intoxicated man who was harassing his teenage daughters, only to be warned by a Brazilian local that striking someone in the back country meant embarking on a fight to the death. Both men agree that avoiding violence is the only logical path in an environment where people do not fight fair.

Moving back to the Pirahã mindset, Everett notes that the tribe lives completely free from fear of death, hell, or the unknown. They are intensely observant of their environment. Sitting on the riverbanks at night, the Pirahã frequently spot satellites passing overhead—noticing subtle shifts in the night sky that outsiders miss—and ask Everett technical questions about who built them and put them into orbit. While they respect human ingenuity, they display no interest in supernatural explanations for physical phenomena.

The Pirahã do, however, hold complex beliefs regarding shape-shifting entities, such as the spirit known as *Igagá* (or *Kagá*), which they believe can embody animals like jaguars. Everett recalls being woken up in the middle of the night by villagers insisting that *Igagá* was right behind his house. Equipped with a machete, Everett walked out to investigate, only to realize the Pirahã had stayed far behind him because they suspected a real, physical jaguar was stalking the perimeter. Everett emphasizes that the Pirahã possess extraordinary sensory awareness in the rainforest—such as spotting a camouflaged bushmaster snake on a trail before stepping on it—a stark contrast to their complete disorientation when brought into modern cities.

- The Pirahã possess hyper-acute visual tracking skills, allowing them to spot hidden bushmaster snakes on trails or small satellites moving across the night sky. - Shape-shifting beliefs among the Pirahã include *Igagá*, a entity/spirit associated with the form of a jaguar. - When taken into urban environments for medical care, the Pirahã experience extreme navigational confusion due to the absence of natural environmental cues.

[01:48:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6532s) Sensory Perception and Pattern Recognition in the Jungle

The discussion opens with Everett addressing whether the Pirahã possess sensory abilities that outsiders lack. Before analyzing their descriptions of spirits, Everett initially considered that they were perceiving physical phenomena invisible to him, as the entire community would simultaneously react to the same sighting. Rogan questions if they possess heightened physical senses, to which Everett explains that their ability is rooted in deep contextual training rather than supernatural perception. Growing up in the Amazonian rainforest, the Pirahã read subtle environmental shifts that an untrained eye completely misses.

Everett illustrates this distinction using concrete environmental indicators. A shifting branch might signal wind, a monkey, or a snake, but while a visitor barely notices the movement, a Pirahã instantly knows the exact source. Similarly, bubbles breaking the surface of a river are meaningless to an outsider, but to the Pirahã, the size and rhythm of the bubbles indicate whether a rock, an alligator, or another aquatic creature lies beneath. Rogan summarizes this ability as hyper-developed pattern recognition rather than extra senses, a distinction Everett agrees with while noting that rigorous psychological testing under controlled conditions would be required to fully map these perceptual differences.

- The Pirahã interpret environmental cues—such as moving canopy branches or river bubbles—with instant, precise accuracy. - Everett attributes their apparent sensory superiority to lifelong pattern recognition rather than unique physical faculties. - Spirit entities like *Xigagaí* or *Igaigai* take various physical forms in Pirahã accounts, including a long-toothed creature (*xipoi*) or a naked, high-voiced figure. - Everett views their spirit taxonomies as a functional form of empirical science: a structured framework used to reduce unexplained observations to recognizable categories.

---

[01:51:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6709s) Navigation, Absolute Direction, and the Hospital Incident

The conversation shifts to how the Pirahã’s oral culture and language structure shape their spatial navigation. Because their world is defined without written history or traditional abstract terms, their cognitive model relies entirely on absolute, geography-based coordinates rather than egocentric terms like "left," "right," "front," or "back." Instead, they orient everything relative to static natural markers: upriver, downriver, toward the jungle, or away from the jungle.

To illustrate their navigational abilities, Everett shares an extraordinary anecdote about bringing a Pirahã man suffering from liver cirrhosis to the regional capital of Porto Velho. The man had never left the jungle before. After arriving at Everett’s home on a missionary compound, Everett drove him to a hospital 30 kilometers (about 18 miles) away and left him under medical care. At 6:00 AM the following morning, Everett heard a knock on his door. The patient was standing on the doorstep barefoot, wearing nothing but an unfastened hospital gown.

``` [ Porto Velho Hospital ] │ │ (Walked ~30 km barefoot overnight in a hospital gown) ▼ [ River Orientation Point ] ──► [ Everett's House on Compound ] ```

When Everett asked how he managed to navigate an unfamiliar city to find the house, the man explained that he simply asked where the river was upon leaving the hospital. By establishing the river's flow direction, he reconstructed an absolute spatial map of the entire area based on his single drive the previous afternoon. He had walked 30 kilometers through the night with zero urban navigation experience. When Everett informed him that he needed to return to the hospital or risk dying, the man adamantly refused, declaring, "I'm going to die then, because I'm not going back... I would rather go back and die with my people." Everett transported him back to the village, where he died a few days later.

- The Pirahã language lacks egocentric directional words ("left" / "right") and cardinal points like "north," relying entirely on absolute riverine coordinates (*upriver* / *downriver*). - The patient navigated 30 kilometers overnight through Porto Velho without shoes or clothing, using only the river's current as an absolute reference point. - Studies demonstrate that speakers who use absolute spatial coordinates outperform users of relative terms when navigating unfamiliar terrain.

---

[01:54:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6886s) Alcohol, Health Concepts, and Cultural Perspectives on Mortality

Rogan asks whether the man's condition was caused by alcohol consumption, prompting Everett to detail the impact of external trade on the tribe. Before Everett assisted the Brazilian Indian agency (FUNAI) in demarcating and securing the Pirahã reservation, external traders frequently navigated the rivers to harvest jungle products such as Brazil nuts, latex, *sorva* (a tree resin used in chewing gum), and *copaiba* (an oil used in cosmetics). Traders routinely paid the Pirahã in cheap sugarcane rum (*cachaça*), which cost around 30 cents a bottle, because it was inexpensive for traders and highly sought after by the locals.

Everett explains that as former pure hunter-gatherers, the Pirahã lacked cultural strategies to manage a continuous supply of addictive substances. When alcohol was only available once every six months, heavy drinking posed little long-term health risk; however, once traders provided a steady supply, chronic liver disease emerged. When Everett attempted to explain the causal link between alcohol or tobacco and terminal illness, the Pirahã rejected his explanations. They noted that many Brazilian traders drank heavily without dying, treating Everett's warnings as unproven assertions.

Rogan observes that their reasoning appears "childlike," leading Everett to explain that the Pirahã require direct, repeatable empirical evidence before accepting a premise. Furthermore, their worldview does not include anxiety over mortality. They possess no organized religious worship, creation myths, or belief in an afterlife; their life purpose centers entirely on contributing to the immediate social group while alive.

- External traders exchanged *cachaça* (sugarcane rum) for raw materials like rubber, Brazil nuts, *sorva*, and *copaiba* oil. - The Pirahã rejected medical advice regarding alcohol and tobacco due to a lack of observable, uniform outcomes among all drinkers. - The Pirahã exhibit no fear of death or formal religious worship; individual purpose is derived strictly from active participation in the immediate community. - When extreme environmentalists advocate for living without impacting nature, Everett notes they would rarely survive more than a few days under actual Pirahã conditions.

---

[01:59:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7151s) Wilderness Skills and the Construction of Bows and Arrows

Everett reflects on his own time in the Amazon, acknowledging that while he loved living among the Pirahã, he maintained safety nets they lacked—including a motorboat, a two-way radio, and a satellite phone. Although he briefly considered abandoning his academic career to stay permanently in the jungle during his early years, he realized he could not deprive his children of broader educational and life choices. Furthermore, he admits he lacked the physical skills required to survive as a traditional Pirahã hunter, noting that a Pirahã woman would never have married him because his poor hunting would have left them to starve.

``` ┌─────────────────────────┐ │ Pirahã Bow Making │ └────────────┬────────────┘ │ ┌───────────────────────┴───────────────────────┐ ▼ ▼ [ Male Contribution ] [ Female Contribution ] • Harvests red wood (*piraña-food*) • Strips bark into fine strands • Crafts 7 ft bow (2" wide x 1.5" thick) • Twists strands into heavy bowstring • Harvests arrow shafts & feathers • Crafts thread to bind arrow components │ │ └───────────────────────┬───────────────────────┘ ▼ [ Completed Hunting System ] ```

The discussion shifts to the craftsmanship behind their hunting weapons. Pirahã men construct bows that stand around seven feet tall—taller than the archers themselves—carved from a dense, bright red timber known locally as "piranha food" (*piraña-food*), named because the tree's falling flowers attract piranhas along the riverbanks. Using machetes, bone, or wood tools, men shape the wood into a bow roughly two inches wide and an inch and a half thick.

The production of hunting gear is a collaborative effort between sexes: - **Men's Role:** Selecting the wood, carving the bow frame, collecting arrow shafts, and sourcing bird feathers. - **Women's Role:** Gathering inner tree bark, stripping it into strands, and twisting it into a thick bowstring. Women also craft the binding thread used to secure arrowheads and fletching to the shaft.

The resulting bows possess high draw weights and shoot exceptionally long arrows, including specialized, extended shafts designed for fish hunting. Because Pirahã children practice with miniature bows starting at two years old, their accuracy and strength by adolescence are unmatched.

- Pirahã bows are approximately 7 feet long, made from a dense red wood whose falling flowers attract piranhas. - Bow and arrow construction requires gender-based collaboration: men carve the wooden elements while women spin the bark bowstrings and binding threads. - Hunting skills are developed from age two, making adult Pirahã archery exceptionally accurate.

---

[02:02:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7374s) Monkey Consumption and Cultural Parallels

Rogan raises the topic of consuming monkeys, asking if the Pirahã find it unsettling given the physical similarities between primates and humans. Everett recalls asking a Pirahã man whether monkeys look like people, to which the man replied with confusion, pointing out that monkeys are covered in fur while humans are not. To the Pirahã, monkeys hold no special conceptual status and are viewed similarly to dogs or standard game animals.

Everett shares a story from his early travels along the Trans-Amazonian Highway. While hitchhiking, he stayed at the home of a Brazilian settler and asked for cold water from a kerosene-powered refrigerator. Upon opening the bottom compartment, he was startled to see what appeared to be four small human corpses. When he asked the host in shock, the man casually replied, "Oh, it's just some monkeys. I skinned them." Everett notes that while a skinned monkey bears a striking physical resemblance to a human infant, hunters and locals view them strictly as a primary meat source, with the brain considered the ultimate delicacy.

- The Pirahã do not view monkeys as human-like, comparing them conceptually to dogs or standard game. - Skinned monkeys closely resemble human infants, a sight that frequently shocks outsiders unfamiliar with jungle game. - Among the Pirahã and other local Amazonian hunters, animal brains are considered the most prized portion of the kill.

[02:04:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7451s) Cultural Perceptions of Food and Prion Diseases

Linguist Daniel Everett and Joe Rogan reflect on how vastly different cultures perceive edible food, highlighting the cultural relativity of disgust. Everett shares a memorable story from his first day in the field, where he was squeezing a noisy mustard bottle to make a lunch sandwich. A local indigenous woman overheard the squirting sound, mistook the mustard for bird feces, and publicly shamed him for eating "bird shit." Meanwhile, Everett looked over to see that she was contentedly sucking the cooked brains out of a rat's head. The contrast illustrated a classic anthropology lesson: what is repulsive to one person is a delicacy to another.

The discussion pivots to whether consuming brain tissue poses severe health risks, such as prion diseases. Rogan brings up Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and "Mad Cow Disease," noting that transmissible spongiform encephalopathies usually arise when animals ingest neural tissue from their own species (such as cattle fed recycled bovine tissue). Everett notes that while cannibalistic ritual consumption of human brains in Papua New Guinea famously transmitted the prion disease Kuru, he is unaware of indigenous populations contracting prion diseases from consuming the brains of monkeys, deer, or rodents.

- **Brain Nutrition:** Brains and organ meats are densely packed with saturated fats and critical micronutrients necessary for survival in hunter-gatherer environments. - **Fish Heads:** Indigenous Amazonian groups prefer trading for canned meats (for shelf stability) while keeping fish heads to make stews, relishing the eyeballs, cheeks, and brain tissue. - **Predatory Behavior:** Wolves in the wild demonstrate an instinctual drive for organ meats; the alpha wolf typically claims the nutrient-dense liver first.

---

[02:07:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7629s) Traditional Organ Meats and Brazilian Churrascarias

The conversation turns to how modern Western diets have moved away from organ meats, whereas traditional cultures prioritize every part of the animal. Rogan points out that dishes like Mexican *menudo* (made with beef tripe) and *pozole* made with cow feet remain staples in Latin American cuisine. Everett recalls his late Mexican brother-in-law insisting that his sister learn to cook authentic *menudo* every Saturday, complete with hooves and joints simmered all day.

Everett explains that authentic *churrascarias* (Brazilian steak-houses) serve a wide assortment of offal alongside standard cuts of meat. He notes that the ultimate litmus test for an authentic Brazilian steakhouse is whether they serve grilled chicken hearts (*coração de frango*). If a *churrascaria* inside the U.S. lacks chicken hearts, Everett considers it overly Westernized. Both hosts praise the rapid service and high nutritional density of Brazilian *churrascaria* dining.

- **Churrascaria Dining:** Customers flip a token to green, and servers continuously carve various meats at the table until the diner is full. - **Post-Jungle Feasts:** After spending six months in remote Amazonian villages, Everett would ride out on his motorcycle and head straight to the first *churrascaria* he found, eating until he could barely move.

---

[02:09:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7745s) Jungle Delicacies, Fermented Saliva Beverages, and Illness

When Rogan asks if Everett ever ate monkey in the jungle, Everett confirms that he did. However, preparing monkey meat requires overcoming a visual hurdle: inside a pot, a pre-cooked monkey body unnervingly resembles a human infant. To make it palatable and tender, Everett cooked the meat over a campfire in a manual pressure cooker until it fell off the bone, then served it mixed with manioc meal (*farinha*) and topped with Tabasco sauce.

Everett then recounts a disastrous experience during field research among the Tzeltal (Seltal) Maya people in Chiapas, Mexico. To fit in during a festival, he drank a traditional fermented beverage prepared by chewing up ingredients and spitting them into a communal bowl, allowing human saliva to drive the fermentation process. Trying to act tough, Everett told his hosts he loved it, prompting them to hand him a giant bowl.

> "That night I was up with things coming out of both ends all night long. And the next morning my blood pressure was 60 over 40. And I had to be flown out. They had to get me on a mule and get me out to the nearest airstrip."

- **Saliva Fermentation:** Enzymes in human saliva (such as amylase) break down complex starches into simple sugars, initiating alcohol fermentation. - **Gut Immunity:** Indigenous hosts possessed local gut microbiomes capable of handling the beverage's bacteria, whereas Everett suffered severe gastroenteritis and near-fatal dehydration.

---

[02:12:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7934s) Endocannibalism and Exocannibalism Among the Wariʼ

Everett details his extensive linguistic fieldwork co-writing a 540-page grammar on the language of the Wariʼ (Wari) people, an Amazonian tribe that practiced ritual cannibalism until 1962. He explains that the Wariʼ made a strict distinction between *exocannibalism* and *endocannibalism*:

- **Exocannibalism:** Slain enemies were treated like game animals, chopped up, grilled over fires, consumed, and their bones discarded into the forest. - **Endocannibalism:** Deceased family members were treated with deep funerary reverence. When a villager died, runners were dispatched across the region to gather relatives. The body would sit in the humid Amazon heat for up to three days until everyone arrived. Relatives then slowly roasted the body over a grill, cutting it into small pieces to consume every part—including the bones and brain tissue.

According to Wariʼ oral history, the purpose of endocannibalism was spiritual: consuming loved ones ensured that their spirit lived on inside their kin rather than rotting in the ground. Rigid etiquette governed the ritual: eaters were forbidden from expressing enjoyment or saying the meat tasted good. However, elderly Wariʼ men quietly admitted to Everett in interviews that infants were considered the most tender.

- **Prohibition:** The Brazilian government and Christian missionaries forcibly halted Wariʼ cannibalism in 1962. - **Physical Toll:** Because bodies sat in the sun for days, the smell of decomposition was severe, and accounts describe relatives vomiting after every bite while completing the ritual.

---

[02:16:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8175s) Amazonian Acculturation and Missionaries

Addressing whether cannibalism still exists in the Amazon, Everett doubts it occurs openly today, though he notes that isolated or uncontacted tribes may still practice ancient rites away from foreign eyes. A fellow missionary who worked with indigenous groups in the 1950s believed some remote tribes continued secret endocannibalistic practices when outside observers were absent.

However, since the 1980s, contact with modern Brazilian society has led to rapid acculturation for most Amazonian groups, including the Pirahã. Everett shares that his ex-wife still lives in a small wooden shack along the Trans-Amazonian Highway right next to the Pirahã. She sends him videos showing that the villagers now wear Western clothing and speak basic Portuguese.

Despite decades of living alongside the Pirahã, Everett's ex-wife has failed to convert a single tribe member to Christianity. Everett admires her unwavering resolve, describing her as a first-century New Testament Christian who fears nothing in life-threatening situations because of her profound belief that God protects her.

[02:18:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8325s) Theological Conviction, Divorce, and "Helicopter Science"

Daniel Everett shares his ex-wife's unshakeable theological conviction, recalling how she holds the belief: "I'm immortal until my task is done. God will protect me until He's done with me." Joe Rogan notes the immense psychological relief and power in living without existential anxiety. Everett agrees, noting that this clarity of purpose was a major part of what initially drew him to her—along with the fact that she was "really cute." However, when Rogan asks if Everett was bummed out when she wanted a divorce after he lost his faith, Everett admits that their relationship had already deteriorated. Beyond their religious differences, his ex-wife was deeply critical of academic "helicopter science." She grew frustrated watching linguists and anthropologists parachute into indigenous communities like the Pirahã for brief stints, only to publish questionable doctoral dissertations that no one would ever re-tested or verify.

Everett explains that whenever he tries to critique these flawed dissertations publicly, he gets dismissed as just a "gringo" who is jealous because the data disagrees with his own findings. Rogan questions why academics do this, prompting Everett to clarify that many fieldworkers realize too late how brutal immersion really is. When researchers land in the field and realize they have no words to navigate the environment, many cut corners or fabricate findings rather than doing the arduous, ground-level work required.

- **Monolingual Fieldwork:** Everett explains that you cannot simply ask a Pirahã person "What is this?" in English. To learn the Pirahã phrase *hi xai xai*, a researcher must observe speakers reacting to a completely novel object, write down the phrase, and then test it across multiple contexts.

[02:20:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8452s) Translating the Gospel and the Pitfalls of Academic Fieldwork

Achieving true fluency in an isolate language like Pirahã requires years of grueling practice. Everett recounts his early attempt to translate the Gospel of Mark into Pirahã, believing initially that he had done a "marvelous job." Although native speakers could repeat bits back to him, they were completely lost when he read larger continuous sections. Everett realized he had mistakenly structured the translation using English grammatical logic rather than authentic Pirahã syntax. Humbling as it was after years of effort, he had to throw out his work and start over from scratch. As Everett puts it, "Before you can learn a language, you have to murder it," accepting that fieldworkers must look like idiots for years before making real progress.

Everett stresses that a typical one-to-two-year PhD timeline is grossly inadequate for learning an indigenous language. Many academics who publish on Amazonian languages can barely speak a word of them, making it impossible for them to test subtle semantic differences with native informants. Furthermore, young researchers often enter the field fixated on confirming a specific theory they learned in graduate school. Quoting Paul Simon ("a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"), Everett cautions that theoretical bias leads researchers to misinterpret native responses. In his own early work, Everett initially assumed informants were being dense or uncooperative, only to realize later that they were giving him exact, profound answers that he was simply too ignorant to understand yet.

- **Monolingual Fieldwork Demonstrations:** Everett regularly demonstrates his field method before live audiences of up to 500 linguists. By switching to a language the subject doesn't know, he can map out basic grammar and vocabulary within 20–30 minutes, though he notes the intense concentration gives him a severe headache.

[02:26:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8772s) Funding, Missionary Motives, and Cultural Misunderstandings

When Rogan marvels at the physical and mental commitment required to live in the jungle under threat of malaria and jaguars, Everett notes that funding is the primary bottleneck for long-term fieldwork. While agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and its British and Brazilian counterparts have funded parts of his research, the vast majority of his decades-long work was made possible through missionary support. Independent church funding allowed him to remain embedded in the Amazon far longer than standard one-year academic grants permit.

However, funding through religious organizations created its own absurd tensions. Everett recalls presenting slides of the Pirahã to a church in Dallas, Texas, only to watch congregants walk out in anger. When he asked what was wrong, they complained that he was a terrible missionary because the Pirahã were not wearing clothes. They cited the Genesis story of Adam and Eve's nakedness as proof that clothing was a mandatory prerequisite for Christianity. Everett reflects on the absurdity of trying to explain to Western churchgoers that a loincloth in the jungle is worn solely to protect against physical hazards—like stick pokes—rather than out of moral modesty.

- **Attitudes Toward Nudity:** Among the Pirahã, exposed breasts carry no sexual connotation; Everett notes that to an average Pirahã man, a woman's breast is as unstimulating as an elbow. - **Granting Limitations:** The National Science Foundation typically rejects five-year language immersion proposals in favor of single-year grants, severely undermining the quality of linguistic research. - **Academic Trends:** Out of an estimated 5,000 linguists worldwide, very few choose long-term field immersion. Most favor Noam Chomsky's desk-bound approach to universal grammar or statistical database analysis.

[02:30:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9005s) Language Birth, Death, and the Loss of Human Knowledge

Addressing the diversity of global tongues, Everett notes that while scholars in the 1980s estimated around 5,000 active languages, modern counts place the total closer to 8,000. Languages die at an alarming rate of roughly one every two weeks, permanently erasing unique human knowledge systems. At the same time, new languages continuously form whenever human populations become geographically or socially isolated. Just as geographic barriers like the Ebro River helped split Latin into distinct Romance languages, populations that stop communicating inevitably experience rapid linguistic divergence. While modern mass media helps keep dialects like British and American English from splitting completely, isolated groups naturally evolve entirely unique languages.

Everett estimates that there are a couple thousand indigenous tribes worldwide whose languages and cultures have never been documented by a single scientist. He argues that society should be just as concerned about language extinction as it is about species loss. Every language functions as an irreplaceable library of ecological and environmental knowledge. For example, while Westerners default to generic labels like "tree," every Pirahã child and adult knows the specific species name for every plant and animal in their surroundings. When a community shifts to a dominant language like Portuguese, that granular botanical and zoological knowledge is permanently lost.

[02:33:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9213s) Loss of Language, Academic Realities, and Fieldwork Technique

Daniel Everett reflects on how Amazonian cultures classify birds based on their diets rather than their anatomical structures—the latter being the standard in Western science. This practical taxonomy means that embedded within the language itself is crucial ecological knowledge regarding how to track, capture, or manage local bird species. When a language goes extinct, all of that accumulated knowledge vanishes with it, which Everett likens to the Library of Congress being destroyed. This raises fundamental questions about why new languages form, the conditions that trigger them, and what this reveals about the human species as a whole.

Everett highlights the difficulties in convincing young academics to pursue fieldwork. Telling a 24- or 25-year-old PhD student to spend four years in the jungle is a hard sell when they can secure a comfortable academic position without that hardship. While professorships are demanding in terms of hours, Everett notes from personal experience that it is far easier than physical labor like running a jackhammer. Paradoxically, he notes that anthropologists are often much better prepared for fieldwork than linguists, observationally noting that more anthropologists end up speaking indigenous languages fluently than linguists do—a phenomenon he blames on "the pernicious influence of certain theories in linguistics" that lead scholars to believe they do not actually need to speak a language to understand its grammatical structure.

When conducting fieldwork, Everett advises researchers to dedicate their first six months solely to learning the spoken language without getting bogged down in extensive note-taking. His personal strategy involved setting a target to learn 10 new words daily, using a small spiral notebook clipped to his belt buckle. He would practice these words in sentences, relying on the local community's reactions to gauge accuracy—often learning through laughter when he made errors. Navigating sensitive vocabulary, such as body parts, required reliance on deep relationships. When asking an adult male for the word for male genitalia, the man declined to answer directly but called over a young boy to demonstrate bodily terms, explaining that words for anatomy change once a person reaches puberty and grows body hair.

* **Amazonian Bird Taxonomy:** Classified strictly by food sources/dietary habits rather than physical or anatomical features. * **Daily Vocabulary Strategy:** Kept a belt-clipped spiral notebook with a daily goal of learning and practicing 10 new words. * **Anatomical Shifts:** Words for male and female genitalia change between childhood and adulthood once body hair grows. * **Verbatim Quote:** "Don't sleep, there are snakes." — The literal nightly farewell phrase used among the Pirahã, which inspired the title of Everett's book *Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle*.

[02:36:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9411s) Closing Remarks and Book Recommendation

Joe Rogan praises Everett for his incredible life story and expresses gratitude for the fascinating conversation. He asks his producer, Young Jamie, to bring up Everett's books on screen, specifically highlighting *Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle*. Everett explains that the title comes from the literal phrase community members say to one another every night before going to sleep. Rogan wraps up the episode with final thanks before signing off to the audience.

## Notable quotes > [09:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=544s) I reached a clearing in the jungle and I saw a deer come out running straight for him. And at first he was happy... then he realized deer don't just come running out of the jungle towards people. And then right behind the deer came a jaguar. — Daniel Everett

> [22:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1345s) I took in a big long horn of tobacco... probably 8 feet or 9 feet long, just rolled up tight tobacco wrapped in latex. You just cut it off for them and they chew it. — Daniel Everett

> [53:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=3220s) They have a high standard of evidence and I didn't meet that standard. — Daniel Everett

> [01:07:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4020s) We don't want to hear about this anymore. — Pirahã villagers

> [01:07:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4020s) Now you're like us. — Pirahã men

> [01:17:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4676s) Religion started when the first con man made the first sucker. — Mark Twain

> [01:24:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5080s) He's dead. What else is there? We die. — Pirahã villagers

> [01:24:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5080s) I'm not a baby. — Pirahã woman

> [01:34:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5656s) Lord, I believe; help my unbelief — Apostle Thomas

> [01:38:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5888s) I miss my dog, I love my dog, but I love my brother. I'm not going to hurt my brother. He was drunk and his head wasn't working. — Pirahã man

> [01:51:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6709s) I'm going to die then, because I'm not going back... I would rather go back and die with my people. — Pirahã patient

> [02:09:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7745s) That night I was up with things coming out of both ends all night long. And the next morning my blood pressure was 60 over 40. And I had to be flown out. They had to get me on a mule and get me out to the nearest airstrip. — Daniel Everett

> [02:33:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9213s) Don't sleep, there are snakes. — Daniel Everett

## Mentioned Daniel Everett, Joe Rogan, Noam Chomsky, Pirahã, Banawá, Wycliffe Bible Translators, Maici River, Homo erectus, Svante Pääbo, Michael Button, Robert Bednarik, Tom Wolfe, The Kingdom of Speech, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, FUNAI, Geo magazine, University of Pittsburgh, MIT, Stanford University, Columbia University, Jesus, Mark Twain, Werner Herzog, Happy People: A Year in the Taiga, The Grammar of Happiness, Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes, Born of the River, Epic of Gilgamesh, Smithsonian, Igagá, Xigagaí, Porto Velho, Wariʼ, Tzeltal Maya, Trans-Amazonian Highway, Chiapas, Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Brazil, National Science Foundation, Paul Simon, Young Jamie, PowerfulJRE, AG1, BlueChew, Perplexity, Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle, How Language Began: The Story of Humanity's Greatest Invention

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU)

中文简报

亚马逊实地研究后，语言学家Daniel Everett否定普遍语法理论对Pirahã部落的田野调查反驳了Noam Chomsky的普遍语法理论，因为该部落的语言完全缺乏递归结构、数字和颜色词汇。语言学家Daniel Everett详细讲述了自己如何从一名与亚马逊Pirahã部落共同生活的虔诚基督教传教士，转变为田野研究直接挑战Noam Chomsky基础语言学理论的无神论者。他深入探讨了Pirahã人独特的语言：该语言缺乏递归结构、数字和抽象颜色词汇，而是建立在直接观察的严格经验标准之上，这种认知方式也重塑了他自己的世界观。此外，Everett还探讨了远古古人类语言的起源、丛林生存的凶险、诸如Wariʼ族仪式性食人等独特的亚马逊文化习俗，以及全球原住民语言正在以悲剧性的速度消亡的现实。语言学家丹尼尔·埃弗里特（Daniel Everett）在前往亚马逊丛林担任圣经翻译前，曾经历极端严苛的求生训练，仅靠砍刀和火柴独自在野外完成了为期10天的生存考核。 (0:01) 皮拉罕人（Pirahã）完全不储存食物，而是通过即时平均分享肉类来维持生存，并将其哲学表述为“将食物保存在兄弟的肚子里”。 (12:52) 埃弗里特发现皮拉罕语既无数字和颜色词，也缺乏语法递归结构，这一田野调查结果直接冲击了诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）的普遍语法理论，引发了长达数年的学界争议。 (29:26) 赞比亚发现的50万年前直立人（Homo erectus）联锁木结构及远古航海跨洋定居证据表明，早期人类祖先具备复杂工程技术与语言能力的时间远早于传统认知。 (36:44) 由于皮拉罕人坚持以亲眼所见作为证据的严格经验主义标准，埃弗里特数十年的传教未能使一人皈依，他本人反而在此文化影响下彻底放弃基督教信仰，转变为无神论者。 (53:40)

Reading summary

Linguist and former Christian missionary Daniel Everett argues that the Amazonian Pirahã people challenge core Western assumptions regarding language, religion, and human happiness through a culture rooted in direct empirical experience. Based on decades of jungle fieldwork, Everett asserts that Pirahã syntax disproves Noam Chomsky's Universal Grammar framework, while the tribe's strict demand for eyewitness evidence ultimately caused Everett to abandon his own Christian faith. Linguistic Recursion and the Universal Grammar Debate (29:26) Everett's linguistic research among the Pirahã revealed properties that directly contradicted Noam Chomsky's foundational theory of Universal Grammar, which posited that recursion—the capacity to embed linguistic phrases inside phrases of the same type indefinitely—is an innate, mandatory component of human speech. According to Everett, Pirahã completely lacks recursive structures, along with numbers, counting systems, abstract color categories, and relative directions like "left" and "right." Sentences are formulated as independent strings of direct observations rather than nested clauses. While Chomsky initially engaged Everett's findings in 1984, the publication of Everett's data in Current Anthropology triggered fierce professional blowback. Chomsky publicly dismissed Everett as a "charlatan" in foreign press interviews. However, Everett notes that independent researchers from MIT, Stanford, and Columbia University conducted field experiments in the Amazon that repeatedly substantiated his empirical claims regarding the absence of recursion and numbers. Strict Empiricism and Everett's Deconversion Arriving in 1977 under the Wycliffe Bible Translators, Everett spent decades attempting to translate the New Testament into Pirahã but failed to convert a single individual. The Pirahã rejected Christian theology because it failed their empirical standard: they required firsthand, witnessed verification. When villagers asked Everett whether he or anyone alive had personally seen Jesus, his admission that Jesus lived thousands of years ago prompted them to dismiss the narrative entirely, stating they had no interest in stories not verified by direct observation. Observing that the Pirahã exhibited extraordinary emotional adjustment, peace, and daily laughter—describing them as the "ultimate Zen masters"—Everett found it impossible to reconcile their pragmatic skepticism with Christian apologetics. Over a five-to-six-year period of questioning, Everett abandoned his faith, announcing his atheism around 2001. This theological shift led to a swift divorce from his missionary wife and the loss of his livelihood and standing within the evangelical missionary community. Subsistence Economics and Fluid Personal Identity (82:07) Pirahã society operates on immediate subsistence rather than long-term accumulation. Everett observed that hunters work only 15 to 20 hours per week when game and fish are abundant, spending the remaining time socializing. The Pirahã do not preserve food, practicing absolute communal distribution under the principle that excess meat is preserved "in the belly of my brother." The culture strongly discourages internal conflict; accidental damage and collapsing shelters are met with laughter and collective repair rather than anger. The tribe's worldview rejects static identity and egocentric spatial frameworks. Adults discard names when they become "rotten" or after transformative life events, disclaiming responsibility for actions associated with former identities. Similarly, Pirahã navigation relies entirely on geographic coordinates—such as upriver, downriver, or toward the forest—rather than relative directions. Everett recounts an Amazonian man who, after being hospitalized 30 kilometers away in an unfamiliar city, successfully walked back overnight to Everett's house by simply orienting his direction relative to the river. Environmental Disruption and Accelerating Language Extinction (15:51) For roughly 300 years, the Pirahã maintained protein self-sufficiency along the Maici River. However, hydroelectric dams constructed by the Brazilian government over the past decade disrupted river flows, drying sections of the riverbed during the dry season, driving away fish, and pushing game deeper into the forest. This ecological shock has forced previously autonomous families to seek food near Brazilian settlements, triggering deadly conflicts and compelling integration into regional towns. This outside contact also introduced refined sugar and alcohol, causing severe tooth decay and chronic liver disease in a population that previously exhibited zero cavities and low body fat. Concurrently, Everett warns that global linguistic diversity is collapsing at a rate of roughly one lost language every two weeks. Because isolate languages encode granular ecological taxonomies—such as classifying birds by diet and behavior rather than morphology—language extinction permanently destroys irreplaceable empirical libraries of the natural world. Everett argues that understanding human cognition requires long-term linguistic immersion rather than brief academic "helicopter science." However, with thousands of indigenous languages still undocumented and dying at rapid rates, the empirical evidence needed to understand human linguistic diversity remains under severe threat from encroaching development and academic theoretical dogmatism.

精炼阅读摘要

语言学家丹尼尔·埃弗里特（Daniel Everett）在播客中阐述了他在亚马逊皮拉罕（Pirahã）部落数十年的田野调查经历，指出该部落独特的语言与实证认知不仅挑战了乔姆斯基的普遍语法理论，也彻底颠覆了他原有的基督教信仰。皮拉罕语言特性与普遍语法争议 (29:26) 埃弗里特指出，皮拉罕语作为一种孤立语言，缺乏西方语言学中常见的抽象色彩词、左右相对方位词、神明概念以及数字与计数系统，仅使用表示相对数量的量词。更具争议的是，埃弗里特基于田野实证主张皮拉罕语完全不存在“递归”（recursion）结构，即无法无限嵌套分句或名词短语，这直接冲击了诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）关于递归是人类语言普遍且固有核心的理论假说。尽管乔姆斯基指责埃弗里特是哗众取宠的骗子并拒绝公开辩论，但来自麻省理工学院脑与认知科学系、斯坦福大学和哥伦比亚大学等机构的独立研究人员在亚马逊开展的实证实验，均证实了埃弗里特关于缺乏递归和数字词汇的描述。直接经验原则与传教信念的瓦解作为威克理夫圣经翻译会的传教士，埃弗里特在长达几十年的时间里未能让任何一名皮拉罕人改信基督教。皮拉罕文化遵循极其严苛的第一手观察标准（经验实证），当得知埃弗里特及其父亲从未亲眼见过耶稣，且耶稣生活在数千年前后，族人便拒绝再听其传教，并反问为何要不断谈论从未见过的实体。面对皮拉罕人表现出的超高心理适应力、快乐度与精神平静，埃弗里特反思了原教旨主义教义中的认知失调与历史疑点，最终在经历了五至六年的剧烈思想挣扎后彻底放弃信仰转为无神论者。这一转变直接导致其婚姻破裂并失去了教会的经济资助。自给生活、空间认知与文化机制 (82:07) 皮拉罕人维持着一种即时消费的纯自给自足生活方式，每周仅需劳作约15至20小时即可获得充足食物，且因“把肉保存在兄弟的胃里”而从不储存食物。由于语言中缺乏“左”或“右”等自我中心词汇，他们完全依赖河流上下游和丛林方向等绝对地理坐标进行空间导航；埃弗里特举例说明，一名从未离开过森林的族人即便被带到30公里外的城市医院，也能在仅询问河流方位后连夜赤脚走回住处。在社会管理层面，他们极力避免暴力和愤怒，将发怒视为严重违规，并实行动态的名字变更机制——成年人在经历创伤或重大事件后会废弃旧名，以前名字所犯下的过失也不再归于现存身份。生态变迁、现代性冲击与学术困境 (12:52) 约十年前巴西政府在周边水系修建水力发电大坝，严重破坏了麦西河（Maici River）的水流生态，枯水期甚至可以直接涉水过河，导致鱼类锐减、猎物迁徙，部落约300年来自给自足的蛋白质摄入被彻底打破。与此同时，外界引入的精制大米、甘蔗糖、汽水和廉价朗姆酒引发了肥胖、龋齿和慢性肝病等健康问题。在学术层面，埃弗里特批评现代学术界流行的“直升机式科研”，指出许多博士生仅在丛林短暂停留便草率发表未经核实的论文；他强调全球语言正以每两周灭绝一种的速度消亡，伴随语言丧失的是深嵌于本土词汇中的不可替代的生态与物种知识。埃弗里特的研究呈现了严谨、长期的田野沉浸如何颠覆主流学术霸权与宗教教条，但随着水坝工程破坏生态平衡、外来物资冲击传统生活，皮拉罕独特的语言与文化体系正面临生存基础瓦解与现代社会同化的严峻挑战。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 频道 PowerfulJRE 于 2026 年 9 月 3 日发布。视频简介介绍了本期对话嘉宾丹尼尔·埃弗雷特博士（Daniel Everett），他是一名语言学家兼大学教授，著有《别睡，这里有蛇：亚马逊丛林的生活与语言》和《语言是如何开始的》等著作，简介中还包含了 Perplexity、AG1 以及 BlueChew 的赞助推广信息。 ## TL;DR 本期节目讲述了语言学家丹尼尔·埃弗雷特从一名虔诚的丛林福音传教士彻底转变为无神论者的传奇经历。埃弗雷特深入亚马逊雨林与皮拉罕人（Pirahã）共同生活数十年，发现该族群语言不仅缺乏数字、颜色词和神灵概念，更不存在语法递归结构，由此对诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）的普遍语法理论提出了颠覆性挑战并引发学界震荡。对话深入剖析了皮拉罕人严格遵循“直接经验原则”的独特认知世界、不惧死亡且满足平和的生活哲学，以及外来水坝开发与廉价烈酒对部落原始生计造成的沉重打击。整场访谈生动展现了严酷田野调查的极限考验，并深刻反思了科学证据、宗教教条与语言承载的文明记忆。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话气氛极为热烈且引人入胜，乔·罗根全程带着孩童般的强烈好奇与惊叹，频频追问丛林生存与学术论战的锋芒细节。埃弗雷特的叙事风格沉稳幽默且坦诚通透，无论是回忆全家罹患恶性疟疾的生死关头，还是拆解学术巨擘的虚荣与偏见，都显得从容不迫、举重若轻。倾听过程中既能感受到原始热带雨林粗粝野性的生存震撼，也能体会到一个坚固信仰体系被客观理性彻底打破、重构时所带来的深邃思想共鸣。 ## Bulletin - [01:07:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4037s) 语言学家丹尼尔·埃弗雷特在亚马逊皮拉罕部落生活数十年，原本怀揣福音派传教使命，却因原住民极端的“直接经验原则”遭遇零皈依，最终反被其影响而彻底放弃基督教信仰，转变为无神论者。 - [31:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1891s) 埃弗雷特实地证实皮拉罕语完全缺乏语法从句嵌套等“递归”（Recursion）结构，直接推翻了诺姆·乔姆斯基将递归视为全人类语言必备核心的假说，后续麻省理工学院等团队的实地测试印证了这一事实。 - [39:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=2359s) 结合50万年前赞比亚木构建筑与100万年前跨洋岛屿繁衍遗迹，埃弗雷特指出直立人（Homo erectus）早在百万年前就已具备协同造船与组织航海的语言沟通能力，语言起源远早于智人时代。 - [01:52:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6732s) 皮拉罕语完全不使用“左/右”等相对方位词，而是依据河流上下游与丛林方向构建绝对地理坐标系，使原住民即便置身陌生现代都市也能凭借水流心智地图在夜间赤脚徒步30英里精准导航。 - [02:30:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9017s) 全球现存约8000种语言正以每两周灭绝一门的速度消失，原住民语言中高度精密的动植物生态分类体系随之断代，其造成的知识损失堪比图书馆被毁。 ## Key takeaways - [53:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=3220s) 埃弗雷特的传教生涯在皮拉罕部落遭遇彻底的零皈依，族人对缺乏亲眼所见目击证据的神明、奇迹或死后世界毫无信服可能。 - [01:07:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4037s) 皮拉罕文化的核心是“直接经验原则”（Immediate Experience Principle），要求一切被陈述的真理必须建立在讲述者亲眼目睹或可查证的经验之上。 - [31:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1891s) 埃弗雷特对皮拉罕语缺乏递归语法的发现动摇了乔姆斯基普遍语法大厦，引发学术界长达数年的人身攻击与阵营防御，反映出学术建制面对范式冲击时的脆弱自我。 - [39:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=2359s) 跨越深水海域在孤立岛屿建立可持续繁衍的人类群落至少需要20至数十人协作，直立人的航海迁徙事实从侧面证实了复杂语言交流在远古时期的必要性。 - [29:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1766s) 皮拉罕语没有独立数字系统，从不数数，仅用“很多”、“很少”或“适量”表述数量，同时缺乏抽象颜色词与以自我为中心的前后左右方向词。 - [11:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=693s) 皮拉罕人不储存或腌制肉类，遵循“把肉储存在兄弟肚子里”的互惠哲学，打到猎物即刻全员分享，依托丰沛的自然资源维系高度自足的生计。 - [13:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=819s) 周边流域的水电站大坝工程改变了迈希河水文，河水暴跌与鱼群绝迹打破了皮拉罕人近三百年蛋白质自给自足的传统，迫使其陷入生存危机并与外界农场爆发致命冲突。 - [58:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=3504s) 皮拉罕人完全否定跨时间的人格同一性，在经历惊险创伤或人生变故后会频繁更换名字，并理所当然地认为旧名字犯下的行为与现在的自己无关。 - [01:25:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5117s) 皮拉罕文化秉持“让自己变硬”的克己信念，主动挨饿少睡以适应险境，对待被毒蛇咬伤、肉体坏死及自然死亡展现出近乎绝对的超然与坦然。 - [01:30:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5408s) 作为体脂率仅4%且全族零龋齿的狩猎采集者，皮拉罕人在接触外部输入的白糖、含糖汽水和精制大米后，健康迅速恶化并陷入近乎100%全员龋齿的代谢困境。 - [02:18:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8317s) 在缺乏共通语言的原始雨林进行单语调查面临极其严苛的智力与体力消耗，现代学界充斥着短期停留的“直升机式科研”，难以产出经得起推敲的实证成果。 - [02:30:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9017s) 原住民语言将生存环境与物种生态学直接编纂进词汇库，语言的加速消亡使得成千上万年沉淀下来的生态经验与分类知识彻底绝迹。 - [02:36:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9411s) 皮拉罕人临睡前互道“别睡，这里有蛇”作为晚安问候，这一习惯不仅是现实丛林危险的写照，也体现出他们在危机环境中无需超自然慰藉、纯粹活在当下的生活哲学。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1s) 从丛林传教士到无神论者：皮拉罕人改变的人生轨迹乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）以极高的热情欢迎了语言学家丹尼尔·埃弗雷特（Daniel Everett）。罗根直言，埃弗雷特拥有极其罕见且戏剧性的人生经历：他最初怀揣着坚定的宗教狂热，以基督教传教士的身份深入亚马逊雨林，试图去接触并归化一个与世隔绝的原始部落——皮拉罕人（Pirahã）。然而，长期的丛林生活不仅没有让他改变原住民，反而彻底颠覆了他自己的信仰体系，最终让他放弃了传教事业，转变为一名坚定的无神论者。埃弗雷特解释道，他在丛林中与皮拉罕人实际共同生活的时间累计长达八年，而与这个族群打交道、展开语言学和人类学研究的跨度更是超过了40年，至今他仍频繁回到那里。罗根对这种人生剧变深感震撼，追问埃弗雷特究竟成长于怎样的家庭，最初又是如何走上宣教之路的。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 丹尼尔·埃弗雷特从少年到深入亚马逊的转变历程 accDescr: 展示埃弗雷特从1968年嬉皮士青年到接受严格训练并进入亚马逊丛林的各个关键阶段 subgraph Phase1 ["叛逆期与信仰转变"] A["1968年：演唱会外倒卖LSD的嬉皮士少年"] --> B["结识传教士之女与其父亲"] B --> C["皈依基督教并就读神学院"] end subgraph Phase2 ["严格的传教与技能训练"] C --> D["4年圣经与神学本科学位 + 卫斯理公会按立牧师"] D --> E["传教机构语言学培训（圣经翻译方向）"] E --> F["墨西哥恰帕斯丛林残酷生存测试（10天独处）"] end subgraph Phase3 ["深入亚马逊"] F --> G["历时8年准备：正式进驻亚马逊皮拉罕部落"] end ``` ### [01:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=71s) 伍德斯托克时代的叛逆：在吉米·亨德里克斯演唱会外倒卖LSD的少年埃弗雷特透露，自己其实出身于一个毫无宗教氛围的蓝领家庭。转折发生在1968年，年仅17岁的他站在吉米·亨德里克斯（Jimi Hendrix）的摇滚演唱会门外，手里揣着一包LSD（迷幻药），试图通过倒卖毒品来换取入场门票。这时，高中一位生活极其规矩严谨的男同学带着妹妹走了过来。女孩长得很漂亮，埃弗雷特便上前搭讪推销LSD。对方兄妹俩从不碰毒品，埃弗雷特便顺势改口讨要零钱凑门票。演唱会结束后，埃弗雷特在学校午餐时间特意坐到女孩身旁展开追求，这才得知她出生并成长于巴西的一个传教士家庭。在20世纪60年代那个躁动的嬉皮士时代，厌倦了美国平庸日常生活的埃弗雷特立刻被“生活在亚马逊丛林”的浪漫想象深深吸引。更为关键的是女孩的父亲——一位在亚马逊宣教20年的资深传教士。埃弗雷特坦言，那位父亲是他家庭之外最具影响力的人生导师。两人常常彻夜长谈，对方描述的热带雨林故事彻底抓住了少年埃弗雷特的心。在爱情与丛林冒险梦想的双重催化下，埃弗雷特火速皈依了基督教。他考入圣经学院攻读神学学士学位，成为卫斯理公会（Wesleyan Church）的受按立牧师，甚至站在街头向路人布道。埃弗雷特的父亲是一名酗酒的建筑工人，坚信抽大麻、喝酒打架才是男子汉的气概。看到儿子一夜之间从可能被捕的问题少年摇身一变成为虔诚的教徒，父亲感到匪夷所思甚至非常不满。罗根调侃道，埃弗雷特对抗家庭的终极叛逆手段，竟然是让自己变成一个循规蹈矩的模范公民与基督教传教士。 - **关键年份与年龄**：1968年，埃弗雷特时年17岁。 - **神职背景**：拥有圣经与神学本科学位，曾获卫斯理公会（Wesleyan Church）正式按立。 - **家庭背景对比**：父亲为重度酗酒的建筑工人，能接受儿子吸食大麻和抽烟，却难以接受他去教会礼拜。 ### [03:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=235s) 恰帕斯丛林的残酷考验：十天无补给独身荒野求生成为一名丛林圣经翻译传教士需要漫长的准备周期。从皈依宗教到最终踏入亚马逊，埃弗雷特整整历经了八年的系统训练。除了四年神学本科，他还接受了传教机构专为圣经翻译设置的语言学培训，紧接着便迎来极其严苛的野外生存测试——全家被派往墨西哥南部的恰帕斯（Chiapas）热带雨林基地。在长达近四个月的丛林生存训练末尾，学员必须通过形同“期末考试”的残酷考验：生存徒步。训练方会将学员独自扔进原始雨林深处至少一周，期间完全不允许携带任何食物或口粮，没有任何后方监控，生死全凭个人造化。埃弗雷特的独身生存期更是长达10天。罗根对这种毫不留安全退路的做法感到震惊：“如果不小心失误，人就彻底死在里面了。”埃弗雷特坦言，当时所有人都在“凭信心而活”，认为上帝在全权看顾这一训练。但他强调，正是这种毫不掺假的极限环境，让他在八年后真正深入亚马逊雨林时，不仅没有感到恐慌或意外，反而有一种“回家般的熟悉与自如”。 - **前置准备周期**：从信仰皈依到正式进驻亚马逊前后耗时8年。 - **测试地点**：墨西哥南部恰帕斯州（Chiapas）的丛林。 - **考核形式**：单人独处至少7天（埃弗雷特实际长达10天），不配发食物和补给，无搜救监控，到期按约定地点接人。 ### [06:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=378s) 胶卷盒里的火柴、藤蔓取水与黑夜中的未知脚步在这场长达十天的单人求生中，学员出发时仅能随身携带大约一夸脱（约0.95升）的饮用水。为了在雨林中存活，埃弗雷特必须运用所学识别水源植物，凭借手中唯一的工具——一把砍刀，跳起来先砍断特定蓄水藤蔓的顶端、再砍断底端来取水饮用。在食物方面，他主要依靠辨别可食用的无毒植物充饥；他还用树枝削出牙签大小、两头尖锐的木刺充当卡钩，系在自带的鱼线上，成功钓上过两条仅有三英寸长的小鱼充饥。罗根吐槽训练方“大方地给了一把砍刀，却连一个鱼钩都不舍得发”，埃弗雷特则笑称，现代求生真人秀《荒野独居》（*Alone*）里的挨饿日常，对他而言早已是几十年前就习惯了的家常便饭。比饥饿更致命的是火源管理。训练方严禁携带打火机，只准将10到15根火柴装在密封的35毫米胶卷盒里带入雨林，平均一天仅有一根的配额。由于雨林环境终日潮湿，未成气候的火焰极易被湿柴浇灭，埃弗雷特必须每天花费半天时间寻找干燥的落叶和脆木引火，小心翼翼地逐级添加稍细的湿枝，直到堆芯温度极高时才能扔上整根湿圆木。保持火堆彻夜不灭是维系生命的核心防线。埃弗雷特回忆起一个惊魂之夜：他在漆黑的营地中惊醒，耳边清晰地传来大型猛兽沉重的脚步声正围着营地打转，他吓得拼尽全力趴在地上对着余烬猛吹，争分夺秒地将火焰重新唤醒以驱赶潜伏的野兽。 - **取水机制**：利用砍刀先砍断藤蔓上部破坏真空，再砍断下部接取流出的天然淡水。 - **生火限制**：无打火机，仅配发装在35毫米胶卷盒内的10至15根火柴，需维持连续10天不熄火。 - **饮食配给**：无口粮，依靠野生植物充饥，自制双头尖木刺鱼钩钓获两条3英寸小鱼。 ### [09:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=560s) 丛林顶级掠食者：美洲豹与防身幻象丹尼尔·埃弗里特（Daniel Everett）回忆起自己刚到亚马逊雨林时，手里曾拿着一把砍刀（Machete），心想可以用它来防身。直到后来亲眼见识到真正的美洲豹（Jaguar），他才意识到拿着砍刀去对抗美洲豹简直是异想天开，对方会在你反应过来之前就把你的头硬生生撕下来。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）笑着打趣说，每个人都喜欢幻想自己遇险时还有一线生机。埃弗里特解释道，美洲豹体重可达400磅（约180公斤），是仅次于狮子和老虎的现存第三大猫科动物，而且它们经常成对捕猎。普通人遭遇美洲豹几乎毫无胜算，除非是当地经验丰富的皮拉罕人（Pirahã）。事实上，确实有原住民独自一人成功猎杀美洲豹的记录，罗根对此感到极其震惊，追问他们究竟用什么武器。埃弗里特表示，原住民外出时身边永远带着弓箭，但面对善于潜伏偷袭的美洲豹，拉弓射箭的距离和时机必须拿捏得分秒不差。 --- ### [10:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=608s) 巴纳瓦人的猎豹惊魂记：长吹箭枪与近身肉搏埃弗里特讲述了他在另一个曾共处数月的原住民族群——巴纳瓦人（Banawá）中听闻的惊险遭遇。巴纳瓦人狩猎时使用淬毒的飞镖和箭矢。有一位猎人在丛林空地中遭遇了一次终生难忘的袭击：起初，一只鹿径直朝他狂奔而来。他原本喜出望外，准备搭箭射鹿，但随即警觉起来——野生鹿绝不可能无缘无故主动冲向人类。果不其然，一只体型硕大的美洲豹紧随鹿后窜出丛林。美洲豹看到猎人后，判定眼前的人类比鹿更具威胁或体型更大，立刻放弃追鹿，转而腾空向猎人猛扑过去。危急时刻，猎人将随身携带的长达七八英尺（约2.1至2.4米）的大吹箭枪横在胸前抵挡。这种吹箭枪非常坚固，猎人死死顶住美洲豹的前胸，然而美洲豹疯狂摆动的后爪直接撕裂了他腿上的皮肉，獠牙在他面门前不断凶狠咬合。千钧一发之际，美洲豹跳开试图绕到背后突袭，猎人抓住这个空当，用淬毒的箭头狠狠扎进美洲豹体内。剧痛让美洲豹迟疑并试图逃跑，猎人随即用毒箭再次补射命中。美洲豹虽被重创逃逸，但猎人因失血和剧毒环境昏死过去，几天后家人才在丛林中找到他，当时他双腿伤口严重感染、血肉模糊，但奇迹般地保住了性命。 --- ### [11:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=693s) 美洲豹的滋味与“储存在兄弟的肚子里” 对于皮拉罕人而言，他们并不是盲目主动招惹猛兽，但只要美洲豹或美洲狮威胁到村落——比如吓到了外出采集的妇女——部落里的男人们就会倾巢出动将其猎杀。埃弗里特自己就曾分食过美洲豹的肉。罗根好奇地询问美洲豹肉的味道如何，埃弗里特回忆道： - 那只被杀的美洲豹其实已经生病、处于饥饿濒死边缘，因此才会反常地去袭击人类妇女。 - 美洲豹肉极其硬韧（stringy），全是紧绷的肌肉和筋腱，口感绝不鲜嫩，用罗根的话说是“极度多筋且坚硬”。 - 当时埃弗里特带着孩子们一起生活在丛林里，吃美洲豹肉时他还特意提醒孩子们：“记清楚，现在是谁在吃谁！” - 埃弗里特的丛林生存铁律是：原住民打到什么他就吃什么，但身边必须常备一瓶塔巴斯科辣酱（Tabasco sauce），“只要淋上辣酱，一切都能咽下去”。罗根提到皮拉罕人的饮食保存习惯，埃弗里特证实他们完全不保存食物。亚马逊许多部落在有盐或条件允许时会熏肉、腌肉或风干，皮拉罕人并非不懂这些技巧（他们向往来的巴西商船兜售肉类时偶尔会加工），但在部落内部，他们现捕现吃。埃弗里特曾问过一名族人为什么不储藏肉类，对方给出了极具哲学意味的回答：“**我把肉储存在我兄弟的肚子里。**”部落内崇尚彻底的共享机制——我捕到猎物就分给你，你猎到肉食也分给我，在自然资源充足的环境下，根本不需要私自囤积。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Piraha Food Sharing Philosophy accDescr: Diagram showing the immediate consumption and communal sharing cycle among Pirahã hunters without food preservation. subgraph S1["获取猎物"] A["猎手捕获鱼类或野味"] --> B["现杀现煮"] end subgraph S2["部落伦理"] B --> C["即时全员分享"] C --> D["“储存在兄弟的肚子里”"] D --> E["互惠安全网：下次共享他人猎物"] end ``` --- ### [13:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=819s) 迈希河的生态浩劫：水坝摧毁三百年自足生计皮拉罕人世居在迈希河（Maici River）流域。这条蜿蜒近300英里的河流在巴西乃至国际地图上甚至常常不被标注，但在美国标准来看已是相当宽阔的河流，两岸相隔数百码，在雨季水深可达75至100英尺。过去近300年来，皮拉罕人是这段数百英里河道上唯一的人类居民，丰沛的鱼群足以让他们轻松维持充沛的蛋白质摄入。然而近十年间，这种与自然共存的平衡被彻底打破： - 巴西政府批准在周边其他流域修建水电站大坝，虽然大坝没有直接建在迈希河上，但水文调控严重改变了干流与支流的水位。 - 迈希河下游水位剧烈下降。以往即便是最枯水的旱季，河道大部分区域依然深不见底；而在近几年，河水低到人们甚至可以直接步行淌水横穿河床。 - 水位暴跌导致河里的鱼群几乎消失殆尽，进而导致依赖水源饮水觅食的丛林野生动物也大幅迁徙绝迹。 - 这是皮拉罕人近300年历史中，首次遭遇**蛋白质无法自给自足的饥荒危机**。由于皮拉罕人从未走出过雨林，他们根本不理解何为“大坝”。埃弗里特曾向他们解释，那是一堵横截水流的高墙，外界修它是为了获取“电力”。皮拉罕人对电毫无概念，埃弗里特在此生活了前20年从未用过电，直到后期引进发电机，他们才勉强将电与“亮光”联系起来。饥饿迫使皮拉罕人铤而走险，他们不得不潜入附近巴西定居者的农场偷盗食物，双方因此爆发激烈冲突，甚至已有人在冲突中丧生。 --- ### [17:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1024s) 瓦解的社群与难以融入的外界为了果腹，皮拉罕人不得不改变习惯去深山打猎，但原本深入丛林一英里就能捕到猎物，现在走上数英里往往依然一无所获。这直接导致了部落社群的瓦解：一些家庭被迫离开故土，搬迁到大河干流附近寻找活路。罗根询问这些流落到文明边缘的皮拉罕人是否正在融入现代社会。埃弗里特透露： - 直到大约五年前，皮拉罕人是绝对拒绝融入现代文明的。即便流落到巴西城镇边缘，他们也宁可像聚集在贫民窟边缘一样，固守在城镇周边的丛林里，与城市社会划清界限。 - 如今由于彻底断粮，为了生存，年轻一代开始尝试融入外界、学习葡萄牙语，但这种被动转变对他们古老纯粹的文化带来了极其悲凉的毁灭性冲击。 --- ### [17:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1070s) 1977年的使命起源：接下无法破译的语言挑战罗根将话题拉回到埃弗里特最初进入丛林的动机。埃弗里特坦言，自己当年前往亚马逊的最初目标是一名福音传教士，隶属于威克理夫圣经翻译会（Wycliffe Bible Translators），使命是将《圣经》翻译成土著语言、建立教会并让原住民归信基督教。在传教机构培训结束时，组织为埃弗里特提供了三个派遣候选方向： 1. 巴布亚新几内亚（New Guinea）； 2. 墨西哥（Mexico）； 3. 巴西亚马逊雨林的皮拉罕部落（Pirahã）。负责人告诉他，他们此前已经向皮拉罕人派驻过两支传教士队伍，但全军覆没——**没有任何人能够搞懂这种语言**，因为皮拉罕语与世界上任何已知的现存语言都没有谱系亲缘关系。组织对埃弗里特说：“如果你愿意接受这项挑战，鉴于你在语言学方面成绩拔尖，我们非常希望你能接下这个群体。”埃弗里特骨子里热爱挑战，一口答应了下来。埃弗里特于1976年接受任命，并在1977年12月正式启程踏入皮拉罕领地。在抵达当地之前，他对皮拉罕语一无所知，没有任何字典、录音或现成的前人研究成果，完全是一片未知的语言盲区。 ### [19:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1156s) AG1 Pro 赞助支持与恢复补剂节目开场延续了一段赞助口播。Joe Rogan 介绍了升级版的 AG1 Pro 配方，该配方在原有的维生素、矿物质、适应原、益生元和益生菌基础之上，进一步强化了对身体机能与运动表现的支持。新配方特别添加了 5 克 Creavitalis 一水肌酸以及用于减少蛋白质分解并促进肌肉修复的 HMB，同时加入肌肽锌以增强肠道健康。整套配方通过了 NSF 运动认证，帮助训练者在日常锻炼后更高效地累积恢复收益。 --- ### [20:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1205s) 历史文献记录与皮拉罕语声调的诡谲陷阱在谈及皮拉罕语（Pirahã）的历史研究时，Daniel Everett 梳理了前人的探索历程。早在 1784 年，葡萄牙探险家就首次接触了皮拉罕人，但当时并未记录词汇表，仅留下了对该族群及其语言的一些描述性文字；令人惊叹的是，这些两百多年前的观察至今依然完全契合皮拉罕人的风貌。到了 1821 年，一位德国探险家深入当地，在没有任何现代语言学训练的情况下整理出了一份相当可观且质量颇高的词汇清单。1920 年，入籍巴西的德国学者（被誉为巴西人类学奠基人的库尔特·尼穆恩达茹，Curt Nimuendajú）记录了一份更为详尽完备的词汇表。然而，这些文献仅仅是零散的词汇罗列，完全没有涉及皮拉罕语的语法架构。更棘手的是，早期探险家根本不知道皮拉罕语是一种高度依赖声调的语言（Tone Language），记录中完全没有标注声调，导致后人单看字面根本无法准确发音。Daniel Everett 举例解释了声调在当地语言中的极端重要性：在皮拉罕语中，“朋友”与“敌人”的辅音和元音听起来极为相近，但声调完全不同。如果用口哨吹出来，两个词的音调起伏有着截然相反的旋律；如果听不出声调的细微起伏，外人根本不知道对方在说什么。这种差异甚至可能引发极为尴尬的场面——在当地语言中，第一人称代词“我”与女性外生殖器的俚语词汇仅仅相差一个声调，刚去的外来者常常误用声调，在说话时指着自己却念出了粗鄙之语，引得全村村民哄堂大笑。对于习惯了印欧语系的西方学者来说，这种必须捕捉微妙音调的思维转变（Mind Shift）是极其剧烈且难以适应的。 * **历史文献脉络**： * **1784年**：葡萄牙探险者进行首次接触，记录风土人情与语言特征，但未编纂词表。 * **1821年**：德国探险家记录首份较长的皮拉罕词汇清单。 * **1920年**：巴西人类学奠基人 Kurt Nimuendajú 深入雨林，编撰出更为系统详实的大型词汇表。 * **声调与口哨语言**：皮拉罕人能够完全用口哨进行远距离沟通，声调的高低滑移直接决定语义（如区分“朋友”与“敌人”）。 --- ### [22:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1328s) 深入雨林第一天：单枪匹马与以物易物当 Joe Rogan 好奇询问第一天抵达村落时究竟如何与从未谋面的原始部落建联时，Daniel Everett 讲述了他刚下水上飞机时的生动场景。当时完全没有任何现代通信手段可以提前打招呼，水上飞机降落在河面上，他就这样直接孤身走进了皮拉罕人的村庄。他当时留着一头显眼的亮红头发，作为部落人眼中从未见过的“红发白人”，村民们对他充满了好奇与打量。皮拉罕人能够本能地判断外来者是否构成威胁，如果感知到恶意，他们能迅速予以反击；但 Everett 展现出的友善化解了潜在的敌意。为了迅速打开局面，Everett 采取了最原始却有效的策略：一上岸就给当地的孩子分发糖果。此外，他在进雨林前得知皮拉罕人极度嗜好咀嚼烟草，于是特地带去了一条约八九英尺长、用天然橡胶包裹紧紧卷起的传统长条烟草卷（巴西传统的“绳状烟草”，Tabaco de corda）。每当有村民愿意配合他记录发音，他就用刀切下一小段烟草或分发糖果作为报酬，并用自带的罐头食品向村民交换新鲜捕获的鱼类。在语言调查的第一天乃至第一个小时里，Everett 便运用最基础的田野语音学方法展开工作。他拿着纸笔就地取材，捡起一根树枝，用英语说出 "stick"（树枝），村民明白他意图后回应了相应的皮拉罕语单词，他便迅速记下音标；接着他故意把树枝扔在地上，村民顺势说出一段话，他便据此推测并记录下“树枝掉在地上”的表达。在 Rogan 看着照片惊叹其中一名村民竟然穿着印有法拉利标志的T恤时，Everett 解释道，偶尔顺流而下的内河商船会拿旧衣服与他们交换物品，但如果商船长时间不来，全村老少平时依然保持着完全赤身裸体的原始生活状态。 --- ### [25:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1543s) 举家迁入与热带丛林疾病的致命考验在首次独自实地考察了 10 天之后，Daniel Everett 作出了一个在常人看来近乎疯狂的决定：带着妻子和三个年幼的孩子举家搬进雨林，并在那里扎根生活了整整一年。当时他的大女儿 9 岁，二女儿 6 岁，最小的儿子才大约 1 到 3 岁。尽管两个年幼的女儿很快就学会了流利的皮拉罕语，但热带雨林中潜伏的致命危险立刻给这个年轻家庭带来了毁灭性的打击。Everett 坦言，如果换在今天他绝对不敢冒这种险，但当时他是一名虔诚的基督教传教士，坚信上帝会庇佑一家人并施行奇迹，因而义无反顾。现实的残酷很快击碎了浪漫的幻想。小儿子在丛林中罹患脑膜炎，两个女儿双双感染疟疾，Everett 自己也未能幸免。几年后他在圣迭戈加州大学医院（UC San Diego Medical Center）就诊时，医生们甚至大感震惊与兴奋——因为 Everett 竟然同时感染了南美洲全部三种不同的疟原虫株，这在医学临床上极其罕见。更惨烈的是他的妻子莎伦（Sharon），感染恶性疟疾后体重从原本的 115 磅（约 52 公斤）暴跌至仅剩 76 磅（约 34 公斤），整个人形销骨立。在紧急送抵的简陋医疗站里，主治医生直接当面告诉 Everett：“她今晚就会死，我们没有手段能保住她的命了。” 为了维持生命，医生不得不为他的妻子进行连续输血以补充被疟原虫大量摧毁的红细胞，并注射大剂量的纯奎宁（Quinine）。高纯度奎宁引发了剧烈而痛苦的副作用，导致妻子连续数日陷入撕心裂肺的干呕与绞痛之中，但奇迹般地，她最终硬生生挺了过来。回顾当初带着全家死里逃生的经历，Everett 动情地回忆起他们如何逃出雨林：当时妻女濒临死亡，他们身处偏僻闭塞的丛林深处，甚至没有属于自己的船只。危急关头，恰逢一位天主教神父开船前来探视新教传教士的工作情况。得知灾情后，神父毅然将自己的狭窄铝合金独木舟及一台仅有 6 马力的强生（Johnson）舷外机借给他们，自己留守雨林。Everett 就这样载着生命垂危的妻儿，在完全未知的热带水路上拼命狂奔寻找生路。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 丛林求生与疟疾撤离流程 accDescr: 展示 Everett 一家在雨林中遭遇疟疾暴发、借船逃生并最终在现代医疗下脱险的完整因果链条。 subgraph Village_Crisis ["雨林危机暴发"] A["进驻皮拉罕村落生活满一年"] --> B["全家多病缠身: 幼儿脑膜炎 / 父女患疟疾"] B --> C["妻子病情急剧恶化 体重暴跌至 76 磅，濒临死亡"] end subgraph River_Evacuation ["水路生死逃亡"] D["偶遇天主教神父顺流探访"] --> E["借用神父窄体铝合金独木舟 搭载 6 马力强生舷外机"] C --> E E --> F["顺陌生河道紧急外运就医"] end subgraph Medical_Treatment ["生死抢救与康复"] F --> G["医生下达病危通知: '今晚就会死'"] G --> H["紧急大剂量输血 持续纯奎宁猛烈药物治疗"] H --> I["全家艰难挺过危机脱险"] end ``` * **家庭成员年龄（初入雨林时）**： * 大女儿：9 岁（后在当地生活期间长至 12 岁左右） * 二女儿：6 岁 * 小儿子：1 至 3 岁 * **家庭健康代价与病理细节**： * **小儿子**：患上脑膜炎（Meningitis）。 * **Daniel Everett 本人**：体内同时携带南美洲全部三种疟疾毒株，终身无法献血，长期依赖达拉匹林（Daraprim）、伯氨喹（Primaquine）与奎宁治疗。 * **妻子 Sharon**：体重因疟疾从 115 磅暴跌至 76 磅，靠密集输血和高毒性奎宁治疗保住性命。 * **撤离工具**：借用天主教神父的一艘窄体铝合金独木舟，仅配备一台 6 马力的 Johnson 发动机。 ### [29:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1766s) 深入丛林的岁月与不可思议的皮拉罕语言丹尼尔·埃弗雷特（Daniel Everett）回顾了自己在亚马逊丛林中度过的漫长岁月。1980年他整整在当地待了一整年，而在1977年至2013年间的其他年份里，他每年都会抽出三到六个月深入部落。长期的野外生活伴随着极大的身体代价，他几乎每次去都会生病，曾罹患伤寒并经历过各种严重的病痛，还遭遇过毒蛇的袭击。然而，这些艰难的经历彻底颠覆了他的认知，事情的发展完全超出了他的预期。当地的皮拉罕人（Pirahã）开始主动向他发问，质疑他不断宣讲的耶稣究竟是谁、到底长什么样。当时埃弗雷特的任务是将《新约圣经》翻译成皮拉罕语，他是以希腊语原文为底本进行翻译，同时参考英语和葡萄牙语。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）惊叹在这样的环境下让当地人理解这些概念有多么困难。比如身处茂密雨林深处，当提到耶稣在荒漠中的故事时，连“沙漠”这个词都很难向从未离开过雨林的人解释清楚。随着研究的深入，埃弗雷特发现皮拉罕语与已知的现代语言截然不同。他们既没有表示方位的词汇（没有“左”或“右”），也没有表示抽象颜色的独立词汇，甚至完全没有数字的概念，也不会数数。埃弗雷特坦言，最初他以为全人类都拥有颜色词、数字以及某种关于神的概念，但皮拉罕人彻底打破了这些常识。罗根追问他们如果不数数，捕捉到猎物或鱼时该如何表达，埃弗雷特解释说，他们只使用模糊的相对概念，例如“很多”、“很少”或“正好的数量”。这项颠覆性的发现随后在学术界引发了巨大的争议，以至于多位心理语言学家和认知科学家专程随埃弗雷特前往亚马逊进行实地测试与验证。 - 丛林经历：1980年常驻一整年，1977至2013年间每年赴雨林生活3至6个月。 - 疾病与危险：感染过伤寒，多次遭毒蛇袭击，每次进丛林都会染病。 - 语言特征：无方向词（无左右）、无抽象颜色词、无独立数字系统，从不数数。 - 数量表达方式：仅区分为“很多”（a lot）、“很少”（a little）或“适量”（a good amount）。 --- ### [31:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1891s) 挑战乔姆斯基：递归理论的交锋与学术界的阻力罗根提起埃弗雷特与著名语言学家诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）之间的知名论战。埃弗雷特澄清说，虽然学界对皮拉罕人缺乏数字、颜色或神灵概念争论不休，但他与乔姆斯基冲突的核心在于**语法**。乔姆斯基主张全人类的语言都建立在一个共同的核心特征之上——“递归”（Recursion）。递归是指在同类型的语言单位中嵌套另一个相同类型单位的能力。例如在名词层面，将名词“卡车”（truck）和名词“司机”（driver）组合在一起，就能嵌套形成第三个复合名词“卡车司机”（truck driver）；在句子层面，“约翰说了”（John spoke）没有递归，但“约翰说比尔发言了”（John said that Bill spoke）就构成了递归，因为“比尔发言了”作为一个完整句子被嵌套进了更大的句子中。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 递归嵌套结构与乔姆斯基假说的分歧 accDescr: 对比乔姆斯基关于语言必备递归特征的主张与皮拉罕语缺乏嵌套结构的实际反例。 subgraph ChomskyClaim["乔姆斯基假说：递归是全人类语言的基础"] A["主句：John said that..."] --> B["从句嵌套：Bill spoke"] C["名词 1：Truck"] --> D["复合嵌套：Truck driver"] end subgraph PirahaReality["埃弗雷特的实地发现：皮拉罕语缺乏递归"] E["简单单句平行并列"] F["无从句嵌套结构"] G["无复合词嵌套"] end ChomskyClaim -.->|受到反例冲击| PirahaReality ``` 埃弗雷特指出，乔姆斯基几乎没有做过深入的跨语言田野调查，仅凭自己熟悉的少数几种语言便断言所有语言必然具备递归属性，并将其写进了核心理论法则中。当埃弗雷特提出皮拉罕语根本不存在这种递归结构时，无异于直接宣称乔姆斯基错了。让一个无名小卒去否定曾被《纽约时报》誉为“当代最重要知识分子”的历史级语言学泰斗，学术圈对此反应剧烈。罗根对此极为感慨，认为学者遇到推翻既定法则的新事实本该感到兴奋，但学术界却普遍表现出信息把关与诉诸权威的丑陋嘴脸。世界上大约有 8,000 种独立语言，而人类目前拥有详实数据的不过 1,200 种左右，根本没有人能掌握所有语言的规律。罗根还以澳大利亚原住民（被称为“mob”）的语言为例，许多部落相距仅仅 30 公里就彼此语言不通且全无文字，那里的语言多样性同样超乎想象。 - 乔姆斯基核心论点：所有人类语言无一例外都以“递归”（Recursion）为根本基础。 - 埃弗雷特的反驳：皮拉罕语及后续发现的其他部分语言缺乏这种语法递归。 - 全球语言现状：世界现存约 8,000 种语言，学术界掌握详细数据的仅约 1,200 种。 --- ### [35:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=2120s) 意识形态攻击与直立人的语言及建筑智慧当挑战触及学术巨头的地位时，学术争论往往演变为人身攻击。埃弗雷特透露，乔姆斯基的一位巴西追随者曾向负责签发部落探访许可的巴西印第安人事务机构（FUNAI）写信，指控埃弗雷特是个“种族主义者”，理由是他把皮拉罕人“贬低为灵长类动物”。埃弗雷特幽默地反驳道，人类本来就是灵长类，自己和对方都是灵长类；批评者的逻辑在于，如果乔姆斯基声称所有人类语言都具备某一特征，而埃弗雷特指出皮拉罕人没有，推导出来的结论要么是乔姆斯基错了，要么是皮拉罕人不是人类，因此提出这一观点的人就被冠上了“种族主义”的帽子。罗根讽刺这种扣帽子的手段是学术界维护自身利益时的惯用套路，学术界往往不为金钱所动，却极度受制于男人们脆弱的“自尊心”（ego）。埃弗雷特进一步阐述，这种差异并不代表高低贵贱，而仅仅说明那是另一种形态的语言系统。这种偏见不仅存在于现代语言学中，在古人类学中也屡见不鲜。传统观点曾断言直立人（Homo erectus）根本不具备人类语音能力，但埃弗雷特在专门研究并撰写关于直立人的专著后指出，直立人跨越重洋迁徙的事实证明他们必须拥有相当发达的交流与协作语言，只是未必符合乔姆斯基所定义的现代语言形式。利物浦大学的考古学家拉里·巴勒姆（Larry Barham）在读到埃弗雷特的论文后与其展开合作，并在赞比亚发掘出了人类历史上已知最古老的木质结构——距今约 50 万年、由直立人制作的木结构建筑。 - 结构特征：该赞比亚 50 万年前的木构遗址包含精密的联锁木件，经专业建筑师评估，其复杂程度足以用于建造走道或房屋。 - 脑容量数据：现代成年男性平均脑容量约为 1,200 立方厘米（cc），女性约为 950 至 1,000 立方厘米；而直立人的脑容量普遍在 950 至 1,000 立方厘米之间，证明脑容量大小并不直接决定人类的智力水平与建造才能。 - 航海与语言能力：直立人能够制作船只、征服海洋，跨越水域屏障的成就要求他们必须具备复杂的交流语言系统。 ### [39:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=2359s) 百万年前的航海、造船与语言的必要性在探讨人类语言起源时，Daniel Everett 提到了他在著作《语言是如何开始的》（*How Language Began*）中论证的一个关键观点：早在 100 万年前，直立人（Homo erectus）就已经具备航海能力。为了造出一艘能航海的船只，语言沟通是绝对必不可少的先决条件。Everett 引用了澳大利亚考古学家罗伯特·贝德纳里克（Robert Bednarik）进行的一项实验：由于现代社会无法找到完全没有语言的正常人作为受试者，贝德纳里克便挑选了多名母语完全不同、彼此无法顺畅交流的人，测试他们能否在没有共同语言的情况下合力造出一艘船。随后，另一位语言学家发表了一篇名为《造一艘船需要多少语言？》的论文，研究结论非常明确：缺乏语言，人类根本不可能建造出能真正出海的坚固船只。 Everett 指出，当考古学家在一个从未与大陆接壤的孤岛上发现直立人群落时，这就意味着他们绝不可能只是碰巧有一两个人趴在浮木或植被上漂流漂过来的——孤立的个体无法建立繁衍种群，岛上必然曾抵达过一个完整的群体。这类能够跨越海域的船只必须能够携带淡水，并同时容纳多达 20 人。Joe Rogan 对此深表赞同，并联想到 NASA 曾做过的一项测算：为了在另一个星球上建立人类殖民地并保证基因多样性、避免近亲繁殖，最少需要 500 个人才能起步。人类繁衍并非像《圣经》中“亚当与夏娃”神话那样仅凭两人就能开枝散叶。Everett 打趣道，当年他作为一名笃信宗教的传教士时，不仅对整本《圣经》字字确信不疑，甚至“连封面封底都信”。 - 罗伯特·贝德纳里克（Robert Bednarik）通过让彼此语言不通的受试者尝试造船，验证了语言在复杂协作工程中的核心地位。 - 直立人在从未与大陆相连的岛屿上繁衍生息，证明他们曾组织过至少可搭载 20 人及淡水补给的集体航海活动。 - NASA 研究表明建立自给自足且健康的繁衍殖民地至少需要 500 人，单纯的一夫一妻模式在遗传学上不可持续。 --- ### [41:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=2470s) 论文发表后的学术界风暴与媒体狂热随后，对话切入 Everett 在顶级学术期刊《当代人类学》（*Current Anthropology*）发表挑战乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）理论的论文后，所遭遇的学术风暴与人身攻击。当时 Everett 正身处德国莱比锡的马克斯·普朗克进化人类学研究所（Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology），他的办公室就在刚刚因破译尼安德特人基因组而荣获诺贝尔奖的斯万特·佩博（Svante Pääbo）隔壁。《明镜周刊》（*Der Spiegel*）的一名德国女记者前来采访佩博，顺道得知了 Everett 颠覆性的研究课题，随即穿过走廊对他进行了专访。此后，《纽约客》（*The New Yorker*）等国际权威媒体相继撰写深度长篇人物报道，将这场语言学争议推到了全球公众视野的聚光灯下。然而，随之而来的学界反应完全出乎 Everett 的预料。他原本天真地以为，面对如此颠覆性的假说，持怀疑态度的同行科学家会设计出严谨的对照实验来检验他的发现——例如论证“若皮达罕语确实缺乏递归，我们在其实际语料中应当观察到什么现象或无法观察到什么”。出乎意料的是，主流学者并没有用科学事实和实验来反驳他，反而开始对他进行恶毒的人身攻击，甚至有大量仇恨信件涌入。同行们公开指责他是“骗子”，声称他捏造数据纯粹是为了“博取媒体关注和出名”。甚至《纽约时报》的一位记者专门打电话质问他：“你是不是故意在炒作博眼球？” Everett 无奈地回应：“难道是我求着你们给我打电话的吗？如果有意思，我愿意聊；但如果我主动给《纽约时报》写信说‘我很特别快来采访我’，你们会理我吗？” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 论文发表与争议扩散流程 accDescr: 展示 Everett 论文发表后从媒体聚焦到遭受学界人身攻击的过程 subgraph MediaSpread ["学术突破与媒体关注"] A["在《当代人类学》发表皮达罕语研究"] --> B["马普所巧遇《明镜周刊》记者专访"] B --> C["《纽约客》深度专题报道全网引爆"] end subgraph Backlash ["学界异常反弹"] C --> D["同行未设计对照实验反驳数据"] D --> E["演变为人身攻击与恶意中伤"] E --> F["指控其为'博眼球的骗子与骗局'"] end ``` --- ### [43:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=2589s) 独立实地复核与被集体无视的科学证据 Joe Rogan 极为不解地指出，这些所谓的专业思想家和顶尖知识分子，居然会如此轻易地陷入人类最原始脆弱的“虚荣心与自我（Ego）陷阱”，甚至为了维护旧有框架完全放弃基本的理性。面对 Rogan“他们到底有没有从实际科学数据上与你交锋”的追问，Everett 透露，麻省理工学院（MIT）脑与认知科学系、斯坦福大学心理学系以及哥伦比亚大学等顶级机构的研究人员，后来曾分别亲自前往亚马逊丛林进行严密设计的实地验证实验。令人欣慰的是，这些独立团队在测试后一致得出结论：Everett 对皮达罕语特性的描述完全属实。然而令人讽刺的是，这些证实 Everett 观点的实验结果出来后，主流语言学阵营并未认错，反而采取了更极端的应对方式： - 他们对白纸黑字的实验结果视而不见，彻底采取“鸵鸟战术”进行集体无视。 - 当被公众或媒体逼问时，他们便构陷诛心，声称“所有去亚马逊做实验的那些学者本身就讨厌乔姆斯基”，借此将科学验证贬低为带有偏见的学术报复。 - 甚至有激进者将 Everett 扣上“种族主义者”的帽子，指责他贬低原住民语言。 --- ### [44:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=2672s) 与乔姆斯基的正面冲突与神坛幻灭 Everett 随后爆料了乔姆斯基对他的激烈敌意。乔姆斯基曾给他发过多封极其刻薄恶毒的电子邮件。Everett 曾公开向乔姆斯基下战书，提议在美国语言学会（Linguistic Society of America）年会上展开公开辩论：“你既然认定我是个白痴，这就是证明你正确的好机会。我们当场辩论，你用五分钟就能让我当众出丑。”然而乔姆斯基不仅断然拒绝辩论，还在接受巴西《圣保罗页报》等媒体采访时公开发难，宣称 Everett“过去或许是个还算不错的语言学家，但现在他就是一个 100% 的江湖骗子（Charlatan）”，更在接受西班牙电台采访时冷酷声称 Everett 的学术贡献“根本一文不值，什么都不是”。 Rogan 感叹，乔姆斯基年轻时在与小威廉·F·巴克利（William F. Buckley Jr.）等保守派名宿的公开辩论中展现出惊人的逻辑压迫力与洞察力，宛如柔道大师借力打力般优雅精准；他早期的著作如语言学巨著《句法理论的若干问题》（*Aspects of the Theory of Syntax*）和政治评论《美国强权与新官僚》（*American Power and the New Mandarins*）在同一年出版，展现出了无可争议的第一梯队天才水准。然而，晚年的乔姆斯基却频频爆出严重负面争议——不仅与臭名昭著的杰弗里·爱泼斯坦（Jeffrey Epstein）关系匪浅，还在新冠疫情期间发表过“应将未接种疫苗者强制集中隔离管制”等极端且反常识的言论，让人大跌眼镜。当被问及乔姆斯基为何对颠覆自身理论的新事实毫无好奇心、甚至不愿亲自去亚马逊一探究竟时，Everett 透露自己当年曾趁乔姆斯基访问巴西时真诚向他发出邀请：“跟我一起去皮达罕人部落吧，你可以亲自问他们任何你想问的问题，我们当场验证。”乔姆斯基却冷冷地回绝道：“我不干那种事，我从不做田野调查（Fieldwork）。”Rogan 犀利地总结道，当一个人长期被《纽约时报》等主流舆论捧为“在世最伟大的知识分子”，全人类都在像崇拜阿波罗神谕一样聆听他的每一句话，尤其在没有互联网即时纠错的黄金时代，任何人的虚荣心与自我膨胀都会无可挽回地扭曲变形。 ### [48:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=2923s) 从学术偶像到决裂：与乔姆斯基的恩怨丹尼尔·埃弗里特（Daniel Everett）回忆起自己与诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）早期的深厚渊源。在他职业生涯初期，乔姆斯基曾是他的学术偶像，并亲自为他在美国的第一份教职撰写了推荐信；当他在匹兹堡大学申请终身教职（tenure）时，乔姆斯基再次为他写了强有力的推荐信。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）调侃道：“如果你是个蠢货，他干嘛要这么做？”埃弗里特风趣地回应：“因为那时我还没成为一个‘蠢货’——我是在公开反驳他之后才变成‘蠢货’的。” 两人的思想交锋始于1984年，当时埃弗里特在麻省理工学院（MIT）语言学系做访问学者，办公室就在乔姆斯基隔壁。埃弗里特向乔姆斯基提出，皮拉罕语可能根本不具备乔姆斯基所强调的某种语言结构。乔姆斯基一边喝着咖啡，一边盯着办公桌旁的黑板若有所思地说：“嗯……我在想这会导致什么后果。”当时乔姆斯基的一位博士生还兴奋地告诉埃弗里特，他让乔姆斯基陷入了深思。然而，当乔姆斯基后来正式发表断言，宣称“递归”（recursion）是所有人类语言都必须具备的核心特征时，埃弗里特基于第一手实证研究提出的异议便让他彻底沦为了被阵营攻击的靶子。罗根感叹，即便人类历史上最聪明的大脑，也往往无法挣脱自我（ego）与权力的陷阱；埃弗里特也感叹道：“长期的经历告诉我，高智商绝非愚蠢的解毒剂，一个人完全可以既绝顶聪明又极度愚蠢。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 埃弗里特与乔姆斯基学术关系演变 accDescr: 展示埃弗里特从受乔姆斯基支持到因语言学实证观点产生分歧并决裂的过程 subgraph 提携期 A["1980年代初：乔姆斯基为埃弗里特写推荐信 （初任教职及匹兹堡大学终身教职）"] B["1984年 MIT 访学：办公室相邻 讨论皮拉罕语语法特性，引发乔姆斯基沉思"] end subgraph 决裂期 C["乔姆斯基断言： '所有人类语言都必须具备递归属性'"] D["埃弗里特实证反驳： 皮拉罕语不存在递归现象"] E["关系破裂： 邮件交锋、报纸公开抨击为'骗子'与决裂"] end A --> B B --> C C --> D D --> E ``` - 乔姆斯基在埃弗里特学术生涯早期提供过两次关键推荐信：一次是全美第一份教职，另一次是匹兹堡大学的终身教职评审。 - 埃弗里特的第一个博士生后来成为麻省理工学院脑与认知科学系的终身正教授。 --- ### [51:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=3063s) 邮件骂战与汤姆·沃尔夫的记录随着学术观点的对立，原本融洽的私交彻底断绝。以往埃弗里特路过剑桥市（Cambridge），乔姆斯基总会抽空与他面谈，但断言事件后乔姆斯基便借故避而不见。后来乔姆斯基的妻子卡罗尔（Carol）去世，埃弗里特寄信表达哀悼，乔姆斯基还曾温和回信感谢；但不久后，埃弗里特便在巴西圣保罗的一份报纸上看到乔姆斯基公开斥责自己是个“骗子”（charlatan）。埃弗里特随即写信质问，乔姆斯基直接在邮件中回复：“没错，你就是一个骗子。”埃弗里特反驳称乔姆斯基应当为此感到羞耻，乔姆斯基则回击称埃弗里特才该为宣扬“不可能正确的言论”感到羞耻。罗根直言，邮件是一种糟糕透顶的沟通方式，成年人在屏幕两端像12岁小孩一样互掷侮辱性词汇。著名非虚构作家汤姆·沃尔夫（Tom Wolfe）在他生前最后一本书《语言王国》（*The Kingdom of Speech*）中，专门记录了两场学术大碰撞：一场是达尔文与阿尔弗雷德·拉塞尔·华莱士（Alfred Russel Wallace）的演化论之争，另一场便是丹尼尔·埃弗里特与诺姆·乔姆斯基的语言学论战。虽然沃尔夫并非语言学家，在语言起源方面的某些观点存在认知偏差，但他对这场学界纷争的记录极为精彩。沃尔夫写作期间每周都会致电埃弗里特核实事实，对语言学界发生这样的学术霸凌与排挤感到无比震惊。 --- ### [53:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=3220s) 零皈依率：传教失败与皮拉罕人的求证标准当罗根问起埃弗里特在丛林几十年究竟让多少皮拉罕人改信基督教时，埃弗里特大声且坚决地回答：“一个都没有（NOBODY）。”皮拉罕人对宗教教义完全不感兴趣，根本原因在于埃弗里特的宣教主张完全无法满足他们极高的“实证标准”（standard of evidence）。皮拉罕人的文化核心是“直接经验原则”（Immediate Experience Principle），要求一切事实必须建立在亲眼所见或亲历者直接目击的基础上，因此他们无法接受关于看不见、摸不着的造物主或古代奇迹的概念。 - 埃弗里特长达几十年的传教生涯在皮拉罕部落实现了彻底的“零皈依”。 - 部落人并非愚昧闭塞，而是拥有一套极其严苛、只承认直接目击或亲身感知经验的求证体系。 --- ### [55:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=3308s) 丛林里的非人实体与“快嘴怪” 罗根好奇地追问，既然皮拉罕人不相信抽象神灵，那他们是否也相信丛林里有神秘生物。埃弗里特解释，自己刚去时以基督徒的视角将这些东西称为“灵体”（spirits），但皮拉罕人从未将它们视为超自然幽灵，而是看作与人类并存的“实体生物”（distinct beings）。如果丛林中出现邻近敌对部落猎人的隐约身影，在树影间一闪而过，他们就会认定那是某种特定的异类实体。皮拉罕人对世界上的生物有一套分类体系，除了人类之外还有三类主要实体；对于人类，他们通过外貌区分不同族群： - **白人/美国人**：皮拉罕人认为白人皮肤发白是因为“体内没有血”，甚至多年后曾疑惑地问埃弗里特“美国人到底会不会死”。埃弗里特45岁时头发开始花白，皮拉罕人全员到老都保持乌黑头发，因此他们以为长白头发的埃弗里特大限将至，用部落俚语“ma”形容他，意为“快要摔倒在地上的人”（半截入土）。 - **快嘴怪（Fastmouths）**：这是他们认为常在夜间出没的实体之一。快嘴怪外形和皮拉罕人一模一样，但有三大特征：第一，说话使用尖锐怪异的高假音（falsetto voice）；第二，皮拉罕人有衣服时会穿，但快嘴怪永远赤身裸体；第三，快嘴怪在性关系上极其放荡不羁。埃弗里特指出，西方社会在“事实与虚构”（fact and fiction）之间划有一道极其僵硬的界限，但在皮拉罕人的认知中，他们无需对其进行完全严密的经验检验。德国《GEO》杂志的一名记者深入丛林采访时，好奇地提出想亲眼见识一下传说中的快嘴怪。埃弗里特转告了一名部落男子，那名男子淡定地答应：“我去给你带一个过来。”说罢便走入丛林深处，过了一会儿，这名男子脱得精光、赤条条地走回村落，开始模仿快嘴怪的举止。 ### [58:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=3504s) “快嘴”灵体与对身份持续性的颠覆丹尼尔·埃弗里特（Daniel Everett）回忆起此前一段极其诡异的经历：当时部落里的一名男子突然进入某种恍惚状态，用尖锐的假声（falsetto）说话，甚至直接扑向随行的记者试图做出猥亵交配的动作。记者当场感到极度不适并抗议，埃弗里特只能无奈地表示：“这是你自己找的，他们就是这种行事风格。”随后，埃弗里特对该男子说记者受够了、不想再见到所谓的“快嘴”（fast mouth）。那人随即怪叫着走开，片刻后穿好衣服正常返回。当埃弗里特问他刚才有没有看到“快嘴”时，对方却若无其事地反问：“这里刚才有快嘴出现吗？我刚才根本不在这儿。” 面对这出匪夷所思的“戏码”，乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）好奇这究竟是皮拉罕人在恶作剧，还是某种精神错乱状态，抑或是一种公开做越轨之事的“免死金牌”。埃弗里特解释称，这处于戏剧表演与真实体验之间的阈限空间（liminal area）。皮拉罕人并没有西方文化中的“附体”（possession）概念，但他们坚信在那个时刻，原本的自己确实不在了，取而代之的是另一个生灵；事后所有人都会异口同声地彻底否认发生过的事情。更深层的原因在于，皮拉罕人完全不承认“跨时间的人格同一性”（constancy of identity throughout time）。他们一生中会频繁更换名字，一旦换了名字，过去那个身份所做的一切都与现在的自己彻底切割。面对往事的质问，他们会理直气壮地回答：“那不是我干的，那是叫那个名字的家伙干的。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 皮拉罕人身份转换与行为切割机制 accDescr: 展示皮拉罕人在进入快嘴状态或更换名字后，如何通过切断人格同一性来免除行为责任与心理负担。 subgraph Altered_State ["超自然/仪式状态（如'快嘴'）"] A["进入假声语调与越轨行为"] --> B["事后完全否认并声称'我刚才不在场'"] end subgraph Name_Change ["世俗生活机制：频繁更名"] C["遭遇无法解释之事或人生转折"] --> D["废弃旧名字并宣告新名字"] D --> E["旧名下的所有行为与历史被完全剥离"] end B --> F["瓦解跨时间的人格同一性 （消除心理创伤与社会责任）"] E --> F ``` ### [01:00:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=3653s) 美洲豹伏击与皮拉罕人的改名习俗在皮拉罕文化中，更名不仅是儿童成长阶段的标志，成年人在丛林中经历无法解释的异象、遭遇心理创伤或生活变故时，也会随时改名以重置人生。罗根询问他们在热带雨林中是否经常被美洲豹咬死，埃弗里特表示在他来回往返近50年的岁月里，从未有人被美洲豹咬死，但遭遇袭击的情况屡见不鲜。曾有一名男子背着装满巴西坚果（Brazil nuts）、重达60磅的大背篓走在丛林里，额头上套着背带（tumpline），低头前行。一只美洲豹突然从树上扑到他背上，所幸利爪抓中的是厚重坚固的竹篓并将其扯落。男子迅速拔箭射中美洲豹；据他们介绍，美洲豹一旦中箭就会本能地试图拔掉身上的箭支，完全顾不上继续攻击人，猎人便能趁机连发三四箭将其射杀。经历此类惊险事件后，族人往往就会顺理成章地更换姓名。埃弗里特强调，改名并非遵循一套刻板的公式，而是他们对客观遭遇产生的主观情绪反应。他们通常先向配偶或子女宣布，随后全村传开。埃弗里特举例说，曾有一次他离开村落六个月后再回来，向他的语言学老师打招呼：“嘿，血食者（Blood Eater，昵称 Ko）！近来如何？”对方却面无表情、毫无反应。反复叫了几次后，对方才冷漠地问：“你在跟我说话吗？那已经不是我的名字了。”那名男子极其严肃地声明自己现在叫“卡帕里”（Kapali），绝不再回应旧名字。 - **更名机制**：皮拉罕人会用指代“变质腐烂食物”的同一个词来形容旧名字“发臭/腐烂了”，表示该名字必须被弃用。 - **埃弗里特的部落名字**：村里一名只围着腰布、令人生畏的强悍男子曾对埃弗里特说：“你太老了，我死去的父亲跟你差不多岁数，我要把他的名字给你。”这个名字埃弗里特一直沿用了约15年。 - **神射技巧**：皮拉罕人弓箭技巧极其致命精准，能在美洲豹专注于拔除第一支箭的极短间隙内迅速连射将其制服。 ### [01:04:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=3887s) 传教的荒诞破灭：“耶稣”夜访部落当谈及部落人口时，埃弗里特提到他刚抵达时全族不足200人，由于他和妻子在此提供长达20年的医疗救助，如今人口已增长到700至800人。罗根随即追问，作为最初抱着传教目的前来的宣教士，在面对完全不相信基督教教义的族人时，日常工作究竟如何开展。埃弗里特解释称，他的时间主要花在语言学分析与圣经翻译上。他当时翻译了大半部《路加福音》，并向一名族人讲解耶稣的故事，还播放了西方制作的幻灯片（其中的耶稣留着胡须，长相如典型的美国人）。然而在皮拉罕人的认知中，图画和照片并没有真实与虚构的分别，他们理所当然地认为画面上的就是现实中的真人。当天夜里，该男子划船回到了河对岸的村落。埃弗里特在对岸听见整夜狂呼乱叫、人群狂奔，夹杂着女人的大笑与惊声尖叫。次日清晨该男子再次前来工作，埃弗里特询问昨晚发生了什么，对方神态自若地回答：“哦，耶稣昨晚来我们村子了！他长着一根三英尺长的生殖器，到处追着想插村里的所有女人。所以，女人们再也不想听到任何关于耶稣的事了。”埃弗里特和罗根均意识到，这显然是某个族人借着耶稣的名义在全村纵欲胡闹，也是他们彻底排斥并终结基督教说教的一种极其荒诞而直接的方式。面对信仰传达的根本障碍，皮拉罕人往往会以绝对的经验主义（即直接经验原则）反问埃弗里特：“嘿，丹，耶稣到底长什么样？他是像我们一样是棕色皮肤，还是像你一样是白皮肤？”当埃弗里特试图打圆场说有人认为他是棕色、有人认为他是白色时，族人毫不客气地打断他：“得了吧，你亲眼见过他，他到底长啥样？”当埃弗里特坦白自己从未见过、甚至连自己的父亲也未曾见过耶稣时，这场跨文化的信仰传播便彻底失去了立足点。 ### [01:07:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4037s) 皮拉罕人的追问与信仰的动摇当丹尼尔·埃弗里特（Daniel Everett）向皮拉罕人坦白自己从未亲眼见过耶稣、甚至也不认识任何见过耶稣的人时，族人们的反应非常干脆：既然你压根没见过他，却整天喋喋不休地向我们传讲他，“我们再也不想听这些了”。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）随即问道，埃弗里特当时明明是一个狂热而虔诚的信徒，究竟是在什么时候、又是因为什么，这份信仰开始土崩瓦解的？埃弗里特解释说，信仰的动摇主要来自两个层面的冲击。一方面，他越来越多地置身于学术圈，致力于严肃的语言学科学研究；但更决定性的力量，其实来自他与皮拉罕人日复一日的相处。埃弗里特直言，这些族人极其聪明，“在我摸透他们之前，他们早就把我摸透了”，甚至直到今天，他们预测埃弗里特行为的能力都远胜于他预测他们。皮拉罕人曾当面对他说：“丹，你总跟我们讲耶稣，但看起来似乎只有美国人才信耶稣，因为我们接触过的巴西人里没一个信的。这看起来纯粹是你们美国人的玩意儿，而我们可不是美国人。”更致命的是，族人质问他：“你这么说的证据到底在哪儿？” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 埃弗里特的信仰动摇过程 accDescr: 展示埃弗里特从虔信到放弃基督教信仰的心路历程与外界促发因素。 subgraph External["外部认知冲击"] A["学术界语言学训练 严谨的科学证据要求"] B["皮拉罕人的直接质问 '证据在哪？谁见过他？'"] end subgraph Internal["内在反思机制"] C["反思群体认同茧房 神学院与信徒圈子的认知同质化"] D["观察族人生活状态 未经福音却拥有最完满的宁静与幸福"] end subgraph Outcome["信念转变与坦白"] E["重拾青年时期的无神论立场"] F["向族人坦白放弃信仰 族人欢笑接纳：'你现在变得跟我们一样了'"] end External --> Internal Internal --> Outcome ``` 这些质问让埃弗里特陷入了无法回避的反思。他意识到，自己过去读神学院、整天被基督徒和信徒群体所包围，这种环境就像某些语言学理论圈子一样——当你周围所有人都在重复同一种观点时，你便很难再去审视其他替代方案。早年在吉米·亨德里克斯（Jimi Hendrix）演唱会门外与第一任妻子相识时，埃弗里特原本是个坚定的无神论者，后来才皈依基督教；而此时他猛然发觉，也许自己最初的无神论立场才是对的。最终，他向皮拉罕人坦白自己也不再相信那一套了，所有男人听后哄堂大笑，调侃道：“哈哈，你现在可算变得跟我们一样了！”随后族人们还戏谑地补了一句：据他们了解，基督徒既不喝酒也不能跟别的女人睡觉，“我们可喜欢干这些事了，所以我们对信教压根没兴趣。” --- ### [01:09:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4173s) 真实的宁静与科学证据的缺席面对罗根追问究竟是什么具体细节摧毁了曾经不可动摇的信念，埃弗里特给出了两个核心根源。首先是精神生命的真实质感。埃弗里特做过多年基督徒，结识过美国本土信徒以及被视为教会精英的海外传教士，但他从未见过任何一个基督徒能像皮拉罕人那样适应生活、应对困难、由衷地感到满足与平和。“他们就像终极的禅宗大师，”埃弗里特说道，如果按教会所言，信耶稣是为了让生命得享平安丰盛，那么皮拉罕人早已自然拥有了这一切。曾有一位麻省理工学院（MIT）的博士生造访部落，惊叹他们是“世界上最快乐的人”。当埃弗里特质疑如何衡量快乐时，那位学生回答：只要记录并对比他们每天微笑和大笑的时间就行，“我敢保证，在这儿几乎看不到哪个皮拉罕人不是时常挂着笑容的”。其次则是科学思维与宗教教条的剧烈冲突。埃弗里特意识到，如果要维系信仰，就必须将自己在语言学科学中坚持的理性原则强行搁置。例如，宗教界充斥着大量绝症不治而愈的神迹见证，即便他不否认个人的主观体验，这些传闻在统计学上也毫无科学意义。 - **隐蔽的疾病与缺失的神迹**：埃弗里特回忆起神学院一位老师曾提出过的犀利质问——为什么那些所谓的“神医”（faith healers）从来不敢去治截肢者？他们总是挑选癌症这类肉眼看不见、随后声称自行消失的疾病作文章。 - **起死回生的缺席**：圣经明确记载耶稣不仅医治病人，更能让死人复活。如果现代医治者宣称继承了耶稣的神力，他们大可以去公墓把死者唤醒，但现实中从未发生过这样的事。 - **无法辩护的教义**：面对皮拉罕人合情合理的质疑，埃弗里特发现自己完全拿不出任何讲得通的客观答案。“在逻辑上，他们比我更有道理；我再也无法强求他们去相信一套连我自己都无法合理解释的说辞了。” --- ### [01:12:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4360s) 古老神话的演变与字面解读的困境罗根指出，古代诸多宗教中其实都存在与耶稣叙事高度相似的原型故事。在他看来，宗教文本或许记录了某些远古历史上真实发生过的事件，但在千百年的流传中，真相早已变得模糊不清。一个典型的例子是使徒保罗——大多数普通信徒得知保罗实际上从未亲眼见过肉身状态的耶稣时都会大吃一惊。保罗写下了大量关于耶稣的教导，但他对耶稣的认知完全来自于“大马士革路上”的异象和梦境启示。埃弗里特打趣道，皮拉罕人其实承认梦境中的所见所闻，如果当年按保罗这种“在异象中相遇”的说法去解释，族人搞不好反而会当成一种见证。两人进一步探讨了旧约圣经中流传的远古灾难记忆。罗根谈到，像诺亚方舟这样的大洪水传说几乎存在于所有古代文明的早期神话中，这极可能折射了人类对史前某次全球性地质灾难的集体记忆，但后人附会其上的种种神魅细节却往往不可考。埃弗里特分享了自己童年的亲身经历：他幼年丧母，七岁时母亲带他开车穿过加州帝国谷（Imperial Valley）前往圣地亚哥，在山脉高处，他注意到岩壁上有一圈清晰的白色石痕，便问母亲那是怎么形成的，母亲随口答道：“是大洪水留下的。”当时年幼的埃弗里特深信不疑，感慨许多所谓的“神圣真理”最初往往就是这样植入人心的。罗根总结道，数千年前人类识字率极低，古籍又经过了多种早已失传的古老语言层层转译，试图从中精准还原历史事实极其困难。信仰体系本身固然有其社会价值——它为人们提供了道德脚手架（moral scaffolding）和生活秩序，那些真正践行基督仁爱教义的人往往也是世上最友善的一群人。然而，一旦将文本诉诸绝对的字面真理，就会陷入荒谬的逻辑困境： - **亚当与夏娃的逻辑漏洞**：如果人类始于最初的两个人，那么随后的整个人类繁衍必然建立在兄妹近亲通奸的基础上，这在生物学与伦理学上均难以自洽，而演化论显然提供了更符合逻辑的解释。 - **全知全能的矛盾**：埃弗里特回忆，母亲小时候给他讲亚当夏娃偷吃苹果背叛上帝、躲藏在伊甸园树后的故事时，上帝居然在园子里呼喊“你在哪里？”当时年幼的埃弗里特便忍不住反问母亲：“上帝不是无所不知的吗？他怎么会不知道亚当藏在哪儿？”宗教文本里此类原始而拟人化的叙述，在孩童纯真的逻辑审视下往往瞬间暴露出破绽。 ### [01:16:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4577s) 科学探索与古人类学的假设检验在探讨对宗教疑问的解答时，丹尼尔·埃弗里特（Daniel Everett）指出，哪怕跳出宗教审视古人类学等科学领域，同样充满着假说与推测。人类过去究竟存在过二十多种人属（Homo）物种，还是主要只有直立人（Homo erectus）、尼安德特人（Neanderthals）和智人（Homo sapiens）这三种？何谓一个“物种”？在斯万特·佩博（Svante Pääbo）通过古 DNA 破译远古生物基因组这项曾被认为不可能的突破之前，人类演化的许多细节都只能停留在猜测与无休止的学术争论中。即便如今有了遗传学记录与基因组测序，很多历史谜题依然无法完全解开。无论是纯粹的历史学、古人类学还是古考古学，理论的建构本质上都是“大胆猜测，然后设法检验”。科学本质上是一个相信能逐步迈向真理的共同体，而唯一的前进路径就是提出高质量的假说、懂得如何验证，并在证明错误时坦率认错，继而转向下一个更好的推测。然而在现实科研中，真正做到这一点极其艰难。 - 古生物学界对人类演化物种数量曾长期存在争议，焦点在于是否存在多达二十种古人类，抑或主要简化为直立人、尼安德特人与智人。 - 斯万特·佩博开创的古代基因测序技术彻底重塑了古人类学研究，在此之前许多理论完全依赖骨骼形态的推测。 --- ### [01:17:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4676s) 宗教教条的内在矛盾与洪水神话乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）补充道，如果一个人同时还是个基督教基要主义者，做科学研究就会更加痛苦，因为这种身份让人时刻处于精神冲突之中——你一面无条件相信一个人能死而复生，另一面又要求在现实中万事拿出证据。埃弗里特表示赞同，指出圣经甚至在多处经文中认可奴隶制，现代信徒只能靠各种牵强的解释来强行自圆其说。两人谈到马克·吐温（Mark Twain）讽刺宗教的犀利言辞，包括“宗教始于第一个骗子遇到了第一个傻子”的名言。马克·吐温还曾嘲弄过诺亚方舟的荒谬逻辑：为了让所有物种在洪水后存活，诺亚一家身上必须带满所有致命的病菌与寄生虫；而方舟停在亚拉拉特山（Mount Ararat）之后，袋鼠等动物又得奇迹般立刻飞奔到澳洲。罗根认为，历史上大概率确实发生过灾难性的大洪水，导致《吉尔伽美什史诗》（Epic of Gilgamesh）以及全球诸多神话都记录了几乎一模一样的洪水故事，但宗教教条却把自然事件粉饰得极为脱离现实。 - 马克·吐温以幽默尖锐著称，曾嘲弄诺亚一家为了给世界保留寄生虫与病原体，肉体必须承受怎样的虫菌折磨。 - 洪水传说横跨《圣经》诺亚方舟与苏美尔《吉尔伽美什史诗》等多重文明古籍，反映了远古时期可能真实存在的区域性或全球性大洪水事件。 --- ### [01:20:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4801s) 虔诚与虚伪：建筑工地上的宗教谎言埃弗里特回忆起自己早年作为基督徒时的反思。他曾告诫其他教友，证明上帝存在最无可辩驳的证据应当是“他是否改变了你的生命、让你活得更有道德”；如果一个自称得救的人品行甚至不如不信教的人，所谓蒙恩得救就是一句空话。随后，他讲述了一段高三时的真实经历：1968年，他通过身为基督教传教士的岳父介绍，给一位同为基督徒的承包商打工，在工地上当挑灰工（hod carrier，搬运砖块和砂浆的体力活）。那是埃弗里特人生中干过最繁重的体力劳动。当时他加入了工会，工会规定的时薪高达每小时 8.25 美元——在 1968 年这是一笔可观的高薪。然而那位身为教会会友的老板在雇佣他时却直言不讳地钻空子：“工会规定我要付 8.25 美元，但我不会给你那么多。我会在工时卡上写你每天只工作 4 小时，但你实际上得干满 8 小时。”埃弗里特震惊于一个每周上教堂的基督徒竟然在报税和工时单上明目张胆地撒谎克扣工钱。这种虚伪屡见不鲜：许多信徒以“人非圣贤”来开脱，却无法解释为何他们号称拥有的圣灵力量，甚至不能让他们比街上普通不信教的普通人（Joe Schmo）更诚实、更有道德。 - **时间与报酬**：1968年工会规定的挑灰工时薪为 8.25 美元。 - **剥削手段**：承包商通过记录虚假工时（账面4小时，实际出工8小时）将实际时薪砍半，同时偷税漏税。 --- ### [01:22:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4927s) 皮拉罕人的自给自足与“快乐语法” 话题转向埃弗里特长期深入研究的亚马逊丛林原住民——皮拉罕人（Pirahã）。他们过着最为纯粹的自给自足生活，罗根指出许多研究表明，这种围绕食物采集、社群陪伴构建的生活，往往拥有极高的人类幸福感与生命意义。埃弗里特曾对皮拉罕猎人的作息进行统计，发现他们每周仅仅需要劳动或打猎 15 到 20 个小时就能维持生计。只要河里的鱼群活跃，打鱼捕猎就能迅速搞定；至于剩下的时间，他们会围在火堆旁悠闲地讲笑话、聊天，父亲们极度热爱陪伴孩子玩耍。纯粹的自给自足意味着他们完全不保存食物，今天打不到猎物就坦然挨饿。罗根提到了沃纳·赫尔佐格（Werner Herzog）记录西伯利亚猎鹰与陷阱猎人的纪录片《快乐的人们》（*Happy People*）；而史密森尼学会等机构为皮拉罕人拍摄的纪录片则被直接命名为《幸福的语法》（*The Grammar of Happiness*）。无论是造访部落的摄制组，还是心理学家与语言学家，都被他们所展现出的纯粹快乐所深深震撼。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 皮拉罕人的极简生活节奏 accDescr: 展示皮拉罕人如何将少数时间投入捕猎，其余大量时间沉浸于社群与家庭生活。 subgraph Work["生存劳动（每周约15-20小时）"] A["渔猎与食物采集"] --> B["即时消耗/不囤积食物"] end subgraph Leisure["社群互动与家庭生活"] B --> C["围聚篝火讲笑话"] B --> D["通宵畅谈与社交"] B --> E["与孩子无拘无束玩耍"] end subgraph State["精神状态"] C & D & E --> F["极高幸福感与生活满足度"] end ``` - **劳动时间**：皮拉罕成年男性猎人每周捕猎与劳作时间仅约 15 至 20 小时（若渔汛好则更短）。 - **食物观念**：不储存、不腌制食物，按日索取，没有就饿肚子，毫无物资焦虑。 - **相关纪录片**：记录皮拉罕人的纪录片名为《幸福的语法》（*The Grammar of Happiness*）。 --- ### [01:24:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5040s) 毫无修饰的卫生现实与直面死亡的坦然在原始丛林中生活，学者和访客必须直面最直观的生理环境冲击。皮拉罕人没有室外厕所的概念，任何人如果需要排便，直接走到十英尺外的灌木丛里就地解决。当罗根好奇他们是否使用卫生纸时，埃弗里特透露他们通常随手用树枝或树叶清理；如果有吃剩下的玉米芯也是极好的工具，但当地并不种植玉米。对皮拉罕人而言，这些只是伴随成长的生理日常，微不足道。面对死亡，皮拉罕人同样展现出惊人的直接。当埃弗里特询问他们“人死之后会去哪里”时，对方只觉得莫名其妙，甚至指着猎人刚带回来准备烤着吃的死猴子反问：“它死了，还能怎样？你为什么问这种蠢问题？人死了就是死了。”他们完全不需要编造来世、神明或彼岸故事来对抗对死亡的恐惧。尽管他们生活在极端凶险的丛林中——频繁遭遇毒蛇咬伤、用砍刀不慎将整只手掌劈成两半，或是打猎时利箭直接贯穿整条手臂——他们依然坦然接纳流血、重伤与死亡本身。 ### [01:25:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5117s) 丛林里的极度坚韧：肉体痛苦与“主动吃苦”文化皮拉罕人长期赤身裸体在热带丛林中奔跑穿行，经常被尖锐的树枝直接刺穿脚底，刮伤更是家常便饭。在亚马逊丛林中，如果被具有血液毒素的毒蛇（如矛头蝮 Jararaca 或灌丛蝰 Bushmaster）咬伤，即使侥幸保住性命，伤口周围的肌肉组织也会大面积坏死脱落。丹尼尔·埃弗里特（Daniel Everett）回忆道，在村落里经常能看到一些族人一条腿粗细正常，另一条腿却因毒液侵蚀皮肉剥落，几乎只剩下附着在骨头上的少许肌肉和一层皮。由于缺乏现代医疗，当他们牙痛时，除了埃弗里特在场时偶尔能拔牙或给点止痛药外，绝大多数时候只能任由牙齿活生生烂掉。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 恶劣生存环境与主动适应机制 accDescr: 展示亚马逊丛林严酷环境如何塑造皮拉罕人主动吃苦的心理与生理机制 subgraph Environment["丛林严酷现实"] A["致命危险 （矛头蝮/灌丛蝰咬伤、树枝刺穿）"] B["医疗匮乏 （牙痛任由腐烂、缺乏外援）"] end subgraph Mindset["主动磨砺信念"] C["文化理念 “让自己变得坚硬”"] D["自发克己行为 （故意少睡、主动挨饿）"] end subgraph Physical["生理强韧转变"] E["厚实老茧保护 （脚底厚茧、脚趾外展）"] F["极高痛阈与情绪克制 （被黄蜂蜇伤谈笑自若）"] end Environment --> Mindset Mindset --> Physical ``` 面对疼痛，皮拉罕人展现出异于常人的忍耐力。埃弗里特提到，有一次他和一位面容清秀的皮拉罕妇女交谈，一只剧痛无比的黄蜂直接蜇在她的脸上。这名妇女神色自若地拔出毒刺，说话的声音连颤抖停顿都没有。当埃弗里特忍不住问她“难道不疼吗”时，她只是轻描淡写地回答：“我又不是婴儿（I'm not a baby）。”皮拉罕人从小就形成了一种“让自己变得坚硬”的文化信条——他们会有意识地少睡觉、故意挨饿，主动将自己置于严苛的环境中经受磨难，因为唯有具备这种极端的韧性，才能在危机四伏的热带雨林中生存下来。 - 物理适应表现：皮拉罕人的脚底结满了厚厚的老茧，脚趾自然向外舒展张开；幼童在学会走路前并不是趴着爬行，而是在坚硬的地面上用屁股蹭着往前挪，导致小孩子的臀部也早早长满了坚硬如皮革的老茧。 - 埃弗里特的对比：埃弗里特在村子里虽然敢赤脚走动（即使会感染寄生虫），但一旦深入丛林就必须穿鞋，因为未经长期磨砺的现代人脚底根本无法抵御尖刺与荆棘。 --- ### [01:28:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5281s) 绝不体罚孩子与现代人无法企及的松弛感尽管对自己极其严苛，皮拉罕人对待下一代却展现出了极大的宽容与温柔。埃弗里特分享了一段往事：曾有一位外来同伴随他进驻丛林，夜里因为一个皮拉罕婴儿整夜哭闹而无法入睡，恼火地质问为什么大人不让孩子闭嘴，甚至提出想过去给婴儿屁股来一巴掌。埃弗里特当场严肃制止，并警告他：“如果你敢动手，他们会杀了你。”皮拉罕人坚决反对体罚儿童，而西方基督教文化中曾根深蒂固的“不打不成器（spare the rod and spoil the child）”在他们看来是完全不可接受的残忍行为。在皮拉罕人眼中，婴儿哭泣是生命自然的表达，而且大家第二天既没有固定的工作日程要赶，也不存在被时间逼迫的焦虑。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）由此感慨，现代人将自己逼入城市、背负工作指标、承受税收与账单等无休止的压力，以为这些外在束缚是人生的必需品，结果不仅没有换来幸福，反而被各色压力疾病缠身。埃弗里特对此深表赞同。他提到，大学里的学术同行来到丛林探望他时，总会惊讶地感叹：“从没见过你这么放松，在大学里你总是心事重重，到了这里却如此悠闲自在。”埃弗里特解释说，这种松弛感是会传染的——皮拉罕人本身就极度随性悠闲，说话慢条斯理、轻声细语，常常一边讲着笑话一边闲聊，以至于埃弗里特即便毫无困意，坐在他们身边听他们聊天也会不知不觉平静地睡过去。 --- ### [01:30:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5408s) 纯粹狩猎采集者的体魄与外来糖类带来的健康冲击在河流生态遭到外部破坏之前，鱼类占皮拉罕人饮食结构的70%，其余则是林间坚果与雨林天然产物。作为不从事农耕的纯粹狩猎采集者，他们不会接触到现代农业中常见的食源性病菌（如生菜污染爆发的病菌），摄入的主要是极优质的高蛋白与天然营养。埃弗里特指出，随便在丛林里挑选一名皮拉罕成年男性，其体重通常在155磅（约70公斤）左右，腰围仅25至26英寸，体脂率低至4%左右，全身都是精炼干练的纯肌肉，“就像一台精密的机器”，完全不存在肥胖或糖尿病问题。然而，现代文明产物的流入迅速打破了这种健康状态： | 外界介入物 | 传入背景与族人反应 | 造成的健康后果 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **政府救济大米** | 巴西政府官员认为需要给原住民提供口粮依赖，运入大量精制大米。族人开始摄入以往极少接触的高碳水淀粉。 | 族群历史上首次出现身体发胖、超重现象。 | | **甘蔗与白糖** | 25年前牙医进村检查时全族**零蛀牙**；后来外人将甘蔗引入田地，族人直接啃食甘蔗或用勺子空口吃掉整斤白糖。 | 牙齿健康崩溃，几乎达到了**100%全员龋齿**的惨状。 | | **含糖汽水（“甜水”）** | 被族人称为“甜水”，极具诱惑力；若有5加仑汽水他们会一口气全部喝光。曾有族人编织篮子只为换取整罐糖水黄桃罐头。 | 带来强烈的糖成瘾风险，对从未建立糖耐受机制的身体造成代谢负担。 | 埃弗里特分析指出，狩猎采集者在自然状态下永远不可能对某种天然食物摄入过量，因为每天获取的食物种类不断变动；例如卷烟草他们虽然喜欢，但一年最多只能接触到一两次，根本没有形成病态成瘾的外部条件。皮拉罕人如今面临的所有肥胖、龋齿和成瘾隐患，完全源于西方文明所输入的高精制糖、酒精与深加工食品。 --- ### [01:33:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5631s) 信仰动摇的序幕：从狂热传教士到无神论者的转变看到皮拉罕人在纯天然生活方式与外来文明冲击下的鲜明对照，罗根将话题引向了埃弗里特人生中最核心的一段转折：埃弗里特原本是一名怀揣坚定信仰、深入蛮荒丛林拯救异教徒灵魂的基督教传教士，但最终却彻底放弃了宗教信仰，转变为一名坚定的无神论学者。罗根好奇地追问，从一个狂热的虔信者到观念彻底颠覆，这中间究竟经历了怎样的过程？这需要走过多少具体的心理台阶与现实阶段，又耗费了多长的时间？埃弗里特回应道，这绝非一朝一夕之功，它不仅包含了一系列现实生活层面的脱离与挑战，更伴随着极其漫长而痛苦的思想蜕变与理性思辨。 ### [01:34:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5652s) 信仰的瓦解与婚姻破裂丹尼尔·埃弗里特（Daniel Everett）回忆道，在深入亚马逊丛林传教大约五到六年时（约 1982 至 1983 年），他开始对自己的基督教信仰产生严重的动摇。然而，直到 2001 年他才公开宣布自己不再是基督徒。促使他彻底摊牌的直接导火索之一，是当时许多基督徒对伊拉克战争的言论——他们声称被派往战场的士兵是“福音中受祝福的和平使者”，这让他感到极度反感。埃弗里特剖析了信仰崩溃的典型心路历程：首先是怀疑萌生；接着尝试祈祷来压制怀疑（正如使徒所言“主啊，我信！但我信不足，求主帮助”）；随后祈祷失效，便开始研读护教学（Apologetics）文献试图自我辩护，却发现那些说辞根本无法自圆其说。最终，他不得不承认自己无法再伪装下去，向妻子坦白：“我再也不相信这些东西了，我真的信不下去了。”妻子随即夺门而出，这段婚姻以离婚告终。埃弗里特同时指出，传教士的经济来源完全依赖于教会资助，一旦公开宣称失去信仰，就意味着立刻失业。两人的婚姻裂痕并不单单源于神学分歧，但在妻子眼中，所有矛盾都被归咎于他日益衰退的信仰。埃弗里特在婚前是个酷爱摇滚乐的年轻人，夫妻俩最初甚至相识于一场吉米·亨德里克斯（Jimi Hendrix）的音乐会；然而为了维持虔诚形象，他多年未听摇滚乐，直到重新听起摇滚乐并和巴西朋友外出饮酒，这些举动在妻子看来全都是“背离信仰”的危险信号。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）调侃道：“任何试图阻止你听亨德里克斯的宗教，都算不上真正的宗教。”埃弗里特谈到自己身为无神论者的父亲曾一针见血地指出：宗教信徒总是试图钻制度的空子，以逃避宗教要求的痛苦戒律。在道德审判中，人人都希望“宽恕留给自己，正义施加他人”——妻子对他严加苛责，而他则对自己网开一面。埃弗里特在圣经学院曾以第一名成绩毕业，对经文烂熟于心，因此后来任何试图重新感化他的人都无功而返：“你不可能拿出一节我不知道的经文来劝我。我不是说你错了，我只是说这套东西对我不再管用了。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 埃弗里特的信仰瓦解历程 accDescr: 展示丹尼尔·埃弗里特从产生怀疑到彻底脱离基督教信仰的心理与生活转变阶段。 subgraph Phase1["信仰动摇与挣扎"] A["产生怀疑 (1982-1983)"] --> B["祈祷试图消除疑惑"] B --> C["研读护教学文献寻求解答"] C --> D["对既有答案彻底失望"] end subgraph Phase2["彻底决裂 (2001)"] E["对伊战言论极度反感"] --> F["向妻子坦白丧失信仰"] F --> G["婚姻破裂与离异"] F --> H["失去传教资助而失业"] end Phase1 --> Phase2 ``` --- ### [01:38:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5888s) 没有上帝的道德：皮拉罕人对困境与愤怒的超然态度罗根指出，当一个原本坚信“只有宗教与上帝才能建立道德基石”的传教士，面对一群完全没有神明概念却极为善良的人群时，认知受到的冲击是极其巨大的。埃弗里特描述了皮拉罕人（Pirahã）面对灾难时截然不同的处世哲学：亚马逊雨林暴雨频发，作为半游牧的狩猎采集者，他们的茅屋并不坚固，狂风大雨常会将整栋房屋吹垮。面对沦落雨中浑身湿透的狼狈场面，皮拉罕人的第一反应竟然是大笑不止，仿佛遇上了世上最滑稽的趣事；他们会坦然挤进邻居或埃弗里特的棚屋避雨，次日再从容重建。除开面对来自猛兽或外敌的迫切生存威胁，几乎没有任何事能让他们失控。即便在面临威胁时展现出杀伤力，也是经过精密计算的自卫。埃弗里特强调，部落里的每一个成年男子甚至男孩都能在 50 码外用弓箭精准贯穿目标的眼睛，他们靠杀戮猎物维生，分得清“必要自卫”与“恶意谋杀”的区别。皮拉罕文化中极力排斥纠纷与内讧。如果说皮拉罕文化中存在类似“罪”的概念，那便是“愤怒”——提高嗓门宣泄愤怒或在暴怒中对同胞动手是绝对的禁忌。埃弗里特讲述了一件亲眼所见的震撼事件：一个皮拉罕人喝醉后，用从巴西人那里换来的猎枪失手打死了亲兄弟的猎犬。爱犬中弹身亡，狗主人抱住尸体痛哭流涕。埃弗里特以为一场流血冲突在所难免，急忙上前询问狗主人打算怎么处置凶手。对方却诧异地回答：“他是我的兄弟，我能对他做什么？他不该开枪打死我的狗，但他喝醉了，脑子不清醒。我爱我的狗，但我更爱我的兄弟，我绝不会伤害他。”这种对仇恨的放下与理解，展现出超越许多宗教教条的宽容力量。 --- ### [01:40:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6048s) 部落的最高刑罚：为了存续而放逐皮拉罕人内部并不设立复杂的司法惩罚机制，唯一的例外是当某个个体的行为威胁到了整个村落的生死存亡。埃弗里特在著作《Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes》及后续作品《Born of the River》中都记录过一个少年的案例：这名年轻的皮拉罕人受雇于外人，为了得到烈酒和一柄新猎枪，顺流而上去杀害了一名居住在同一条河流上的非皮拉罕人。部落成员立刻意识到这一行径带来了毁灭性的灭顶之灾——军警可能会开进丛林进行报复，整个族群都会面临血光之灾。皮拉罕人没有对他施以肉体私刑，而是判定了他们文化中最严酷的刑罚：驱逐出境（放逐）。少年被彻底逐出村庄，任何族人都不再与他有任何往来。他只被允许带走随身的一张弓与箭矢，没有多余的食物、衣物或任何社区协作支持。在危机四伏的亚马逊丛林深处，失去群体的保护意味着事实上的死刑。大约两个月后，少年便死在丛林中。埃弗里特并不确切知晓他的死因，推测不是死于自然恶劣环境，就是被丛林里的其他势力杀害。罗根打趣提到皮拉罕人改名字洗脱嫌疑的习惯，而埃弗里特则指出雨林河流上的环境极其残酷血腥——沿河来往的巴西船员中充斥着宛如现代海盗般的亡命之徒，脸上、身上布满刀疤，暴力冲突司空见惯。 - **放逐少年的生存处境**：仅保留个人弓箭，无额外口粮与补给，缺乏群体分工协作在雨林中难以维系生计。 - **河流上的外部威胁**：沿河往来的巴西商船与淘金者多为亡命之徒，刀疤遍布，民风极为剽悍凶险。 ### [01:42:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6178s) 丛林里的生存法则与对暴力的规避丹尼尔·埃弗里特（Daniel Everett）回忆起一段经历：当时一名喝醉了酒的男子在纠缠骚扰他正值青春期、长着金色秀发的女儿们。埃弗里特出面喝止并成功让场面暂时平息，但心里憋着一股火，想着如果对方再敢放肆，就直接“朝他脸上狠狠来一拳”。然而，当地人立刻严肃告诫他绝不能这样做。在那种法外之地，根本不存在公平的拳头对决；一旦你动手打了他，就必须做好当场杀死他的准备，否则对方一定会抄起刀子或枪，在毫无防备的时候置你于死地。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）听到埃弗里特真想赤手空拳揍人时感到吃惊，埃弗里特坦承虽然自己父亲年轻时极爱打架，但在丛林中这种文明社会的斗殴逻辑完全行不通。谈及皮拉罕人（Pirahã），埃弗里特指出，这群人虽然没有现代枪械，但在使用冷兵器和丛林格斗等暴力技巧上，远比大部分文明社会的人强大得多，可他们却选择极力避免任何暴力冲突。罗根对此大加赞赏，认为不计代价避免暴力才是真正的大智慧。 - 当地生存信条：“打人一拳”等于开启生死决斗，对手必然会动用刀枪等致命武器反扑。 - 皮拉罕人拥有极高的杀伤技能，却在日常生活中恪守远离暴力的准则。 --- ### [01:44:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6265s) 没有上帝与地狱：皮拉罕人的世界观与星空观察罗根询问，面对一个既没有神明时刻监视其言行、也不存在“死后下地狱永受烈火焚烧”等惩罚机制来规范道德的族群，埃弗里特有何感受。埃弗里特表示，起初他以为没有宗教的人会对死亡或未知充满恐惧，但深入接触后发现皮拉罕人完全不惧怕死亡，对未知事物更是充满了纯粹的好奇心与求知欲。埃弗里特举例说，晚上他会和皮拉罕人坐在河岸边看夜空。由于常年生活在自然之中，皮拉罕人对星空的微小变化了如指掌。当人造卫星从夜空划过时，他们会指着那道移动的微光问这是什么。埃弗里特向他们解释那是类似无线电设备的卫星（因为皮拉罕人见过埃弗里特的无线电台），并解释可能是美国人送上去的。当族人好奇地追问“那你懂得怎么把它送上天吗”，埃弗里特坦白回答自己并不会，他们便很自然地得出结论：“那就是其他美国人懂怎么做。”埃弗里特指出，族人十分敏锐且求知欲旺盛，但如果当时试图用“这是上帝放在天上的”这种神学话术去搪塞，他们反而根本不会搭理。 --- ### [01:45:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6337s) 亦人亦兽的精灵“伊加盖”与视觉盲区话题转到皮拉罕人的泛灵信仰。埃弗里特介绍了一种名为“伊加盖”（Igagai）的实体精怪。皮拉罕人相信形体转换（shapeshifting），例如一个人和一个美洲豹先后出现，他们可能会认为这个人变成了美洲豹，或者美洲豹化身为人；这种变形传说在整个亚马逊流域（包括当地巴西居民中）都相当普遍。埃弗里特讲述了两次戏剧性的事件： 1. **清晨的河滩指认**：一天清晨，整个部落的人都指着对岸沙滩大呼小叫，惊恐地喊着“那是伊加盖”。埃弗里特顺着他们手指的方向望去，眼前除了空荡荡的沙滩什么也看不见。 2. **夜入丛林寻怪**：几天后的深夜，有人将熟睡的埃弗里特叫醒，称伊加盖就在他家房子后方不远处。族人怂恿说：“我们知道你不怕它，你带我们去吧。”埃弗里特中计，抓起一把大砍刀就朝黑暗中走去。走了一阵猛然回头，才发现所有人早就悄悄溜光了。由于“伊加盖”常常以美洲豹的形态现身，埃弗里特意识到自己正赤手空拳在夜里追踪一只潜伏的美洲豹，吓得赶紧退回屋里。埃弗里特起初以为自己在寻找类人生物，后来意识到丛林边缘很可能真藏着一只肉眼极难察觉的美洲豹。在丛林中，皮拉罕人能看到文明人完全视而不见的细节。有一次族人提醒埃弗里特“别踩到那条南美巨蝮（Bushmaster）”，埃弗里特低头死活看不到；直到族人搭弓射箭，利箭在地上剧烈扑腾挑出一条毒蛇，埃弗里特才倒吸一口凉气。他自嘲在丛林里就像个“需要特殊看护的残障人士”，全靠族人照料才保住性命；而一旦把皮拉罕人带进现代都市看病，他们面对街景地标同样会彻底丧失方向感。 --- ### [01:48:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6529s) 模式识别与皮拉罕人的原始“科学解释” 对于埃弗里特与族人之间的感知差异，罗根提出探究：皮拉罕人究竟是具备某种超常的感知力，还是拥有常人不及的“模式识别”（pattern recognition）能力？埃弗里特赞同了模式识别的解释。在丛林环境中，树枝微颤究竟是微风拂过、猴子跳跃还是毒蛇盘踞，埃弗里特甚至注意不到晃动，皮拉罕人却能一眼断定起因；河面上冒出的一串微小气泡，在埃弗里特眼里毫无意义，族人却能精准分辨水底究竟只是一块石头，还是潜伏着一条凯门鳄或其他水生生物。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 皮拉罕人的感知与实体解释模型 accDescr: 展示皮拉罕人如何通过超强模式识别观察自然现象，并将无法解释的异象归入伊加盖等精怪实体的理论框架。 subgraph Perception["自然观察与模式识别"] A["丛林细微现象 (水面气泡 / 树枝晃动 / 阴影)"] --> B["超强模式识别能力 (生长环境习得的生存技能)"] B --> C["具体生物与危险判定 (凯门鳄 / 巨蝮蛇 / 美洲豹)"] end subgraph Explanation["未知现象的理论构建"] A --> D["无法直接查证的未知现象"] D --> E["投射至具象化实体 (伊加盖 Igagai / 长牙尖叫怪等)"] E --> F["经验还原为可解释形态 (原始形态的经验科学)"] end ``` 埃弗里特进一步探讨了精怪实体的本质： - 除了能化身为美洲豹的“伊加盖”，他们还描述过长着长牙、浑身赤裸、发出尖厉高亢叫声的各种神秘生物实体。 - **将未知还原为已知**：正如现代文明通过科学构建“理论实体”（theoretical entities）去解释未解现象，皮拉罕人也是将无法解释的经验投射到这些具体的怪异生物形象上。这在本质上并不是纯粹的迷信，而是他们所拥有的认知手段下的一种“原始科学”。 - **语言与经验的边界**：在埃弗里特为他们发明文字之前，皮拉罕人全靠口口相传的口头语言维系世界，其认知完全依赖眼前的亲身游历与亲眼所见，没有任何外部或历史文献库可供查阅。 ### [01:52:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6732s) 绝对方向感与赤脚夜行三十英里丹尼尔·埃弗里特（Daniel Everett）讲述了一桩令人叹为观止的往事：他曾带一名患有严重肝硬化的皮拉罕成年男子前往最近的大城市——巴西朗多尼亚州首府韦柳港（Porto Velho）就医。这名族人一生从未离开过热带雨林。抵达城市后，埃弗里特先带他去了自己在当地传教士大院的住所吃午饭，随后送他前往医院。面对陌生的现代医疗环境，男子极度抗拒，直言自己不想留在这里；埃弗里特则转述医生的警告，劝说他必须住院治疗才能好转，并陪护了几个小时才驾车离开。令人难以置信的是，次日清晨六点左右，埃弗里特的住所门外响起了敲门声。医院距离这里足足有三十英里，而这名族人竟然赤着双脚、仅套着一件病号服，里面连内裤都没穿，硬生生从医院走到了埃弗里特的家门口。当埃弗里特震惊地问他是如何找到路线时，他轻描淡写地回答：“我昨天见过你家，我就这么走过来了。”埃弗里特解释道，心理学与语言学实验早已证明，皮拉罕语中完全没有“左、右、前、后”这类以自我为中心的相对方位词，他们全靠“上游、下游、朝向森林、背离森林”等绝对地理坐标来进行空间认知。进城后的第一件事，这名男子就是确认河流的位置。尽管河流曲折蜿蜒，但凭借水流流向，他在脑海中瞬间将整座城市的相对位置映射到了河流的绝对坐标系上，从而在夜间完成了这场不可思议的徒步。当埃弗里特劝他重返医院并警告“不回去就会死”时，男子的态度决绝而平静：“那我就死吧，反正我绝不回医院，我宁愿回到我的族人身边死去。”埃弗里特最终尊重了他的选择，将他送回丛林部落；仅仅几天之后，这名男子便溘然长逝。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 皮拉罕人的绝对地理坐标认知与城市导航 accDescr: 展示皮拉罕人如何依赖河流流向建立心智地图，并完成从医院到住所的长途导航。 subgraph S1["认知基准建立"] A["进入陌生城市"] --> B["寻找最近的河流"] B --> C["根据水流方向辨识\n'上游' 与 '下游'"] end subgraph S2["心智地图构建"] C --> D["将城市地标映射至河流系统\n(如埃弗里特住所位置)"] end subgraph S3["绝对导航实践"] D --> E["从医院逃脱并脱离现代参照物"] E --> F["凭借河流坐标与绝对方向感\n夜行30英里精准抵达"] end ``` ### [01:54:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6886s) 廉价烈酒的侵蚀与缺乏统计因果的生死观谈及男子肝硬化的根源，埃弗里特透露这源于外界贸易的侵蚀。在他协助巴西国家印第安人基金会（FUNAI）为皮拉罕人划定保护区界限之前，外部商船在巴西坚果成熟季以及采集橡胶、索尔瓦树胶（sorva，用于制作口香糖）和苦配巴香脂（copaiba，用于防晒护肤）的季节，经常深入这片流域。巴西商人最喜欢用来以物易物的筹码就是极度廉价的甘蔗烈酒——卡夏莎（cachaça），一瓶仅需三十美分。商船经常成批留下烈酒，而皮拉罕人天性嗜酒，毫无节制。埃弗里特曾劝告族人这些酒极其廉价且害人，但族人却反驳：“对你们便宜，对我们可不便宜，不换我们就喝不到，我们喜欢它。” 从狩猎采集社会的演化机制来看，族人过去面对的资源从未有过持续供应，偶尔喝醉一次隔上半年并无大碍；然而当烈酒源源不断涌入时，长期过量饮酒便迅速恶化为致命的健康危机。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）询问，族人难道不会从同伴死于肝硬化中吸取教训、调整饮酒行为吗？埃弗里特表示他们完全不会。皮拉罕人的思维模式就像幼童一样依赖亲眼所见的证据：当埃弗里特苦口婆心地劝说酒精或烟草致命时，族人会理直气壮地回击：“我们认识很多大口喝酒的巴西人，他们怎么没得病？就这一两个人病倒了，你凭什么证明是酒害的？”他们无法理解统计学概率或滞后的慢性病因果链，就像无法向一个缺乏对照样本的人解释疫苗的保护率一样。不仅如此，皮拉罕人对死亡抱有一种极其坦然超脱的态度。他们并非急于求死，但在面对不可避免的死亡时，内心毫无焦虑与恐惧，生与死都被视为天地间最自然的规律。 - **贸易交换媒介**：每瓶仅值 30 美分的甘蔗酒卡夏莎（cachaça），成为外界商人榨取巴西坚果、索尔瓦树胶和苦配巴油的廉价工具。 - **因果认知局限**：皮拉罕人严格遵循“亲身经验原则”，由于不能立即目睹喝酒与肝硬化之间的直接物理联系，加之见过许多饮酒却健康的巴西人，因此拒不接受现代医学的慢性危害解释。 ### [01:57:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7062s) 社区即生命意义，以及未留在丛林的现实抉择当罗根探寻皮拉罕人是否拥有宗教信仰、崇拜对象或宏大的生命目标时，埃弗里特给出了极其干脆的否定回答。皮拉罕人没有任何崇拜仪式或超自然神祇，“社区就是他们的一切”。一个人活着的目的，就是在这个群体中生活、为族人作出自己的贡献；这里不需要哲学家或牧师向大众宣讲“人生的意义是什么”，每个人看着彼此的生活方式，便自然而然地融入其中。罗根感叹这种纯粹的生活令人向往，但现实却严酷得令人望而却步——现代人根本无法承受被毒蛇咬伤、伤口腐烂深可见骨的野蛮环境。埃弗里特对此深表赞同，并戏谑道，那些鼓吹人类绝不该影响自然的极端生态学家，如果被扔到皮拉罕人的村落里，“绝对撑不过三天”。埃弗里特坦言，自己在那里生活时其实享有族人没有的现代退路：他有摩托艇、双向无线电台和卫星电话，随时可以呼叫救援离开。在早年间，他也曾动过彻底放弃学业、不回美国、就此融入部落度过余生的念头。然而，考虑到孩子们的成长需要更宽广的世界与多元的体验，他觉得自己无权剥夺下一代的选择，最终打消了定居的念头。更现实的阻碍在于生存技能的残酷差距。埃弗里特自十岁起就接触打猎（如猎雉鸡和斑鸠），自认喜欢狩猎，但丛林生存技能与皮拉罕人相比犹如云泥之别。皮拉罕的孩子从两岁起就开始摆弄弓箭，到了少年时期，其箭术与追踪技巧已达至境；埃弗里特曾为他们举办过小型射箭比赛，族人神乎其技的命中率令人叹为观止。他自嘲道，如果自己真的一辈子留在丛林，不仅要花上数年练习才能勉强达标，而且在练成之前就会饿死——更没有任何一位皮拉罕女性会愿意嫁给他，因为跟着他打不到猎物，注定会活活挨饿。 ### [02:00:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7245s) 皮拉罕人弓箭制作与男女分工的隐喻在谈到皮拉罕人（Pirahã）如何制作弓箭时，丹尼尔·埃弗里特（Daniel Everett）介绍说，他们会使用几种不同的木材，其中一种最特别的是亮红色的木头，被称为“水虎鱼的食物”（piranha food）。这种树生长在河岸边，花朵脱落掉入水中时，水虎鱼极度喜欢吃。因此埃弗里特打趣道，如果在水里看到很多这种红花，最好就不要下去游泳了。制作弓箭时，皮拉罕男子会砍下一大段树干，长约8英尺，横截面大约是4英寸乘4英寸或6英寸。他们用木头、兽骨制成的专用工具，或者手头的柴刀（machete）不断刮削塑形，最终做出一张约2英寸宽、1.5英寸厚、长达7英尺的强力长弓，其高度甚至超过了猎人自己的身高。紧接着，男子会从特定树种上撕下坚韧的树皮纤维，并将它们交给身边最亲近的女性亲属——无论是姐妹、母亲还是妻子。女人负责将这些纤维搓拧成强韧的弓弦。埃弗里特指出，在皮拉罕文化中，一张完整的弓象征着男女之间的紧密协作：男人负责砍伐加工弓木，女人负责搓制弓弦；箭矢也是如此，男人负责找羽毛和削箭杆，女人负责制作绑系固定各个部件的细绳。在整个武器制作中，女性扮演着“将一切黏合在一起的胶水”的角色。皮拉罕人使用的箭非常长，除了常规猎箭，还有更长的捕鱼箭，搭配那张厚弦大弓，杀伤力极其强悍。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 皮拉罕弓箭制作的性别分工 accDescr: 展示男性与女性在制作皮拉罕长弓与箭矢过程中的具体协作流程 subgraph ManRole ["男性分工"] M1["采集并砍削红木 (长约7-8英尺)"] M2["制作弓身主体"] M3["采集羽毛与箭杆"] end subgraph WomanRole ["女性分工"] W1["剥取特定树皮纤维"] W2["搓制强韧弓弦"] W3["搓绳并绑系固定箭羽与箭头"] end subgraph Product ["最终武器"] B["7英尺超长强力猎弓"] A["长箭与捕鱼箭"] end M1 --> M2 M2 --> B W1 --> W2 W2 --> B M3 --> A W3 --> A ``` --- ### [02:02:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7374s) 吃猴肉的文化认知与芥末对决鼠脑乔·罗根对皮拉罕人大量捕食猴子感到十分惊讶，询问这难道不会让人觉得诡异。埃弗里特坦言，自己曾问过当地人：“猴子看起来不像人类吗？”对方困惑地反问：“你怎么会这么想？猴子浑身是毛，你又没长一身毛。”埃弗里特还问他们觉得猴子更像人还是更像狗，他们毫不犹豫地回答：“它们更像狗，比像人类多得多。”对他们来说，猴子纯粹就是食物。埃弗里特回忆起自己当年独自沿泛亚马逊公路（Trans-Amazonian Highway）搭便车旅行的经历：他借住在一个巴西人家里想喝凉水，打开对方的煤油冰箱后吓得魂飞魄散——冷冻层底部躺着四个剥了皮的猴子，看起来就像死去的婴儿尸体。被剥皮的猴子确实极其像人，但当地居民对吃猴肉早已习以为常。在皮拉罕人眼中，任何猎物身上最美味的部位都是脑髓，因为脑组织富含动物为了生存所必需的高饱和脂肪。埃弗里特分享了一段极其生动的人类学文化对比轶事：刚到部落的第一天，他拿出自己带的面包和午餐肉做三明治，拿起芥末酱挤压时，瓶底喷气发出了类似腹泻的声音。旁边一位皮拉罕妇女厌恶地质问：“你吃的这坨鸟屎一样的东西是什么？”埃弗里特解释说这是芥末酱很好吃，并问她要不要尝尝，对方连连摆手，大声嘲笑他竟然在吃“鸟屎”。然而埃弗里特转头一看，这名妇女手里正抓着一个煮熟的老鼠头，美滋滋地吮吸着里面的老鼠脑髓。埃弗里特感叹，这简直是人类学入门课的绝佳案例——每个人对食物的美味与恶心有着完全相反的感知标准。 - 脑髓是动物体内饱和脂肪的极佳来源，在缺乏稳定油脂摄入的丛林中是珍贵营养品。 - 罗根提到吃灵长类脑组织是否会感染朊病毒（Prion disease），例如新几内亚食人部落出现的库鲁病（Kuru）。 - 埃弗里特表示未曾听说吃猴脑会患病，朊病毒传播往往涉及同类相食（如同类牛骨粉导致的疯牛病），而人类食用鹿脑、鼠脑或猴脑似乎并未引发此类疫情。 --- ### [02:06:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7577s) 动物内脏与内脏饮食的文化变迁埃弗里特进一步谈到，皮拉罕人捕猎后最喜欢的部位其实是整个头部。如果他们送给埃弗里特一条鱼，往往希望换取能长久保存的肉罐头；埃弗里特喜欢吃鱼脸颊肉，但他的妻子极其反感鱼头，于是皮拉罕人乐得把鱼头留下来熬成一大锅浓汤，把鱼脑、眼球和所有的骨髓吮吸得一干二净。罗根指出，现代西方社会对内脏的排斥非常奇怪，但在自然界中，狼群捕猎后往往是头狼（Alpha）优先享用营养最密集的肝脏。两人随后聊到了各国传统烹饪中对内脏的钟爱： - **巴西烤肉（Churrascaria）**：真正的巴西本地平民烤肉店必提供烤鸡心、牛心、肝脏和腰子（肾脏）。埃弗里特笑称，辨别一家巴西烤肉店是否地道或者是否被“西方化”的标准，就是看他们上不上烤鸡心。 - **墨西哥传统美食**：罗根提到墨西哥著名的牛肚汤（Menudo），里面炖煮了大量的牛肚与内脏杂碎；埃弗里特的已故墨西哥裔妹夫当年要求妻子学会的第一道正宗菜也是 Menudo，每周六必吃，此外还会熬制炖上一整天、带牛蹄与牛内脏的肉汤玉米浓汤（Pozole）。 - **野外归来的大餐**：埃弗里特回忆自己在雨林村落待了整整6个月后，骑着摩托车刚进城，饥肠辘辘的他看到第一家平民巴西烤肉店就立刻冲了进去，翻开绿色翻牌后任由服务员狂上烤肉，一口气吃到肚子发胀几乎动弹不得。在聊到自己在雨林的生活时，埃弗里特承认自己吃过猴肉，但当时当地人没有分给他猴脑，因为那是留给他们自己的最精华部分；如果当时对方提供了，他也完全愿意尝试。他提到早年在墨西哥南部恰帕斯州（Chiapas）做田野调查时，曾借住在玛雅人后裔策尔塔尔人（Tzeltal）的村落里，为了融入当地文化，甚至喝过当地妇女用嘴咀嚼原料、吐出来经唾液自然发酵制成的传统含酒精发酵饮料。 ### [02:09:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7784s) 口水发酵酒引发的中毒与雨林炖猴肉丹尼尔·埃弗里特（Daniel Everett）回忆起自己为了在部落中“表现得很酷”，硬着头皮喝下由人类唾液咀嚼发酵的自酿酒。尽管心里极其厌恶，他表面上还是装作非常喜欢，结果族人热情地端给他满满一大碗。这顿痛饮付出了惨重的代价：当天夜里他上吐下泻，双向喷射折腾了整整一夜；次日早晨他的血压骤降到极度危险的 60/40 mmHg。由于情况万分危急，大家只能把他驮在骡子背上，一路紧急护送到最近的丛林简易跑道乘飞机撤离求医。不过，埃弗里特苦笑着打趣道，这次劫难倒也算值了——部落从此完全接纳了他，把他当作一个敢喝这种东西的“伟大的外国佬（gringo）”。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）惊叹当地人的肠道菌群竟能适应这种充满人类唾液和细菌的饮料，忍不住吐槽这种获取酒精的方式实在太恶心、太拼命了。埃弗里特随后将话题转到丛林中的肉食来源，当罗根询问猴肉的味道时，埃弗里特表示很难用现代词汇精准形容。他解释猴肉质地极韧，他的传统烹调方式是带着一个能在篝火上直接烧的高压锅：把整只小猴放进高压锅压熟，直到骨肉完全分离，倒进碗里撒上木薯粉（manioc meal），再浇上厚厚的塔巴斯科辣酱（Tabasco），吃起来非常顶饱可口。尽管刚把蜷缩如婴儿般的小猴尸体放入锅中时视觉冲击极大、令人颇感不适，但埃弗里特直言，当你在雨林中呆得足够久时，任何肉类看起来都会显得无比诱人。 - 埃弗里特的自制丛林食谱：篝火高压锅炖猴肉 + 木薯粉 + 塔巴斯科辣酱。 - 急性中毒症状：整夜上吐下泻，血压跌至 60/40 mmHg，通过骡子转运至跑道紧急空运就医。 --- ### [02:12:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7934s) 瓦里族的食人习俗：内食人与外食人埃弗里特提到自己曾深入研究过瓦里族（Wari'），并合著过一本厚达 540 页的瓦里语语法书。瓦里族直到 1962 年才在巴西政府与传教士的干预下终止食人传统。他在研究中区分了两种截然不同的食肉习俗：“外食人（exocannibalism）”与“内食人（endocannibalism）”。外食人发生在部族冲突中，敌人被杀死后纯粹当作野兽对待，肢解后架在火上烤熟吃掉，吃剩的骨头随意弃入密林；而内食人则是部族对待亲属亡故的神圣葬礼仪式。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Wari Cannibalism Practices accDescr: Comparison between Endocannibalism and Exocannibalism among the Wari people subgraph Endo["内食人 (Endocannibalism) - 亲族葬礼"] A["族人去世，尸体停放3天通知亲属"] --> B["亲友齐聚，慢火炙烤整具遗体"] B --> C["切成小块用签子食用"] C --> D["吃尽骨肉与脑髓：赋予亲人永生"] end subgraph Exo["外食人 (Exocannibalism) - 战时敌袭"] E["杀死敌对部落战斗人员"] --> F["视如猎物直接斩块烧烤"] F --> G["随意食用，碎骨丢弃荒野"] end ``` 当村子里有族人去世，尸体往往需要在亚马逊炽热的阳光下停放整整三天，以便派出的信使通知分散在各偏远村落的所有血亲。遗体开始高度腐烂发臭，待全族到齐后，大家将尸体放在烤架上慢火熏烤，切成碎块后用类似小竹签的工具分食，直到吃光所有肉、骨髓和脑髓。埃弗里特通过访谈得知，这一仪式的核心信仰是赋予死者“永生”——让逝者活在生者的体内，而自己未来也将活在后代的身体里。 - 习俗终止时间：1962 年（由巴西政府和传教士叫停）。 - 仪式禁忌：食用亲属遗体时有极严苛的礼节，绝对不允许夸赞肉质美味；但老一辈私下对埃弗里特坦白过“婴儿的肉味道其实非常好”。 - 腐败现象：三天等待导致遗体腐败恶臭，口述历史中记录了许多族人一边吞咽一边呕吐的真实场景。 --- ### [02:13:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8024s) 朊病毒疑云、文化源头与现代同化罗根随即提出医学上的顾虑，询问食用人脑是否会导致克雅氏病（Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease）或库鲁病等由朊病毒（prion）引发的致死脑病。埃弗里特表示，在他和医疗团队的接触记录中，瓦里族从未被正式登记过这类病例；这或许是因为食用频次完全取决于自然死亡率，并非像吃日常肉类那样普遍。对于这种习俗的源起，两人探讨了是起于极端饥荒演变成宗教借口，抑或从一开始就建立在灵魂寄宿的泛灵观念之上。瓦里族自身的口述历史从未提及“因饥饿缺肉而吃掉同伴”，而始终坚称是为了灵魂相继。埃弗里特在 1985 年初次接触瓦里族，当时三十岁以上的族人基本都亲历过这一风俗。尽管目前外界已无公开的食人行为，但埃弗里特引述了一位自 1950 年代起就在该地区传教、于去年去世的老传教士的观点：她深信在没有外人注视的深山老林里，依然有老派原住民秘密恪守着“吃掉亲属”的古老宗教戒律。埃弗里特指出，自 1980 年代以来，能与外界接触的雨林部落正经历极为迅速的巴西主流社会同化。以皮达罕人（Pirahã）为例，他的前妻至今仍住在跨亚马逊公路（Trans-Amazonian Highway）旁靠近河畔的原木小屋中，坚持向他们传教。从前妻发来的视频和照片中可以看到，皮达罕人的穿着已经大为改变，部分人开始尝试讲不太流利的葡萄牙语。尽管前妻数十年来从未真正让一个皮达罕人改信基督教，但埃弗里特由衷敬佩她拥有初代新约基督徒般不可动摇的刚毅信仰与无所畏惧的勇气。 ### [02:18:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8317s) 传教士的“免死信念”与“直升机式科研”乱象在探讨传教士面对丛林危险与死亡的态度时，丹尼尔·埃弗里特（Daniel Everett）指出，基督徒传教士群体中广泛流传着一句信念格言：“在我的使命完成之前，我是不朽的”（"I'm immortal until my task is done"）。只要上帝对自己的计划未尽，上帝就会提供庇护；若生命该当终结，那也欣然接受。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）感叹这种近乎绝对的笃定蕴含着巨大的心理力量，能够彻底抚平现代人普遍遭受的存在性焦虑（existential angst）。埃弗里特坦言，他的前妻过去就完全没有这种焦虑，这种特质在两人相恋之初对他有着极大的吸引力。当罗根问及埃弗里特后来丧失信仰并导致妻子提出离婚时是否感到沮丧，埃弗里特透露两人当时的关系已经出现裂痕。除了信仰分歧，他的前妻极度反感学术界所谓的“直升机科学”（helicopter science，即掠夺式科研/降落伞科研）：许多学者来到原住民部落匆匆待上一小段时间，采集浮于表面的素材，随后离开并发表一堆根本无人能够验证的荒谬结论。埃弗里特自己也多次亲眼目睹这一幕，有些语言学家或人类学家在皮拉罕人（Pirahã）社区待上极短时间后拼凑出的博士论文荒诞至极；然而，一旦埃弗里特公开指出其中的谬误，往往会被同行反唇相讥，指责他不过是个“傲慢且嫉妒的白人（gringo）”。 ### [02:20:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8405s) 单语调查的极限挑战与翻译圣经的挫败罗根质疑是否真有学者抱着“反正没人会去复查”的心态胡乱杜撰，埃弗里特给出了肯定的回答。他解释称，许多人之所以中途敷衍甚至瞎编，是因为立项时觉得研究原住民极具光环，真正进驻雨林后才发现其艰难程度完全无法用语言形容。在没有任何双语媒介的情况下，田野语言学家面临的第一个障碍就是：你甚至无法开口询问“这是什么？” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 单语田野调查与语言习得闭环 accDescr: 展现语言学家在没有共通语言的丛林中获取基础词汇到掌握语法逻辑的完整循环过程 subgraph Phase1 ["第一阶段：单语破冰 (Monolingual Elicitation)"] A["引入未知新物品"] --> B["屏息观察原住民互动"] B --> C["捕捉自然发问：'这是什么？'"] C --> D["音标记录与场景重复验证"] end subgraph Phase2 ["第二阶段：语法重塑与文化校准"] D --> E["拼凑日常词汇与句子结构"] E --> F["尝试翻译（如《马可福音》）"] F --> G{"原住民能否大段理解？"} G -- "无法理解（受英语语法污染）" --> H["推倒重来，打破固有思维"] H --> E G -- "顺畅理解" --> I["达到真正母语级流利"] end ``` 埃弗里特回忆，为了弄清皮拉罕语里的“这是什么”，你不可能用英语去向对方解释自己的意图。他只能长时间屏息观察，或者故意拿出一件族人们从未见过的全新物件，静待有人按捺不住好奇向同伴发问，抓准那一瞬间将发音记录下来，再反复测试求证。历经多年摸索，埃弗里特成为了极少数能讲一口流利皮拉罕语的外人，但通往流利的道路布满了挫败感。当年作为传教士，他曾雄心勃勃地将《马可福音》（Gospel of Mark）全文翻译成皮拉罕语。起初逐句朗读时，族人们还能根据零散词汇解释大意，让他误以为大获成功；但当他尝试连续朗读大段经文时，皮拉罕人完全陷入了茫然，根本无法理解。埃弗里特意识到，自己潜意识里全套搬用了英语的句子结构与语法骨架，翻译出的文本在皮拉罕语语境中根本不合逻辑。 - **语言习得的残酷定律**：埃弗里特直言，在真正掌握一门没有文字的原始语言之前，“你必须先把它碎尸万段（murder it），并且甘愿当上好几年的白痴”。 - **学术投入的时长断层**：普通博士生通常只能投入一到两年进行田野调查，但仅熟练掌握一门复杂的亚马逊丛林语言就需要耗费数年。许多发表专著的学者在现实中连几句流利的日常对话都无法维系，更遑论引导被访者辨析极为精微的语义差别。 ### [02:22:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8571s) 理论教条的陷阱与原住民的智力对决谈到学术训练的弊端，埃弗里特指出研究生院往往给学生预设好了一套理论框架，学生们潜意识里便将博士论文的任务设定为“去田野寻找佐证该理论的证据”。这恰如保罗·西蒙（Paul Simon）在名曲《拳击手》（*The Boxer*）中所唱：“人总是只看自己想听的，其余一概视而不见”（"A man sees what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"）。他主张田野工作必须以纯粹的客观描述为核心，理论归纳应当退居其后。在田野调查中，埃弗里特曾遭遇一次深刻的谦逊教育。他向皮拉罕人索取特定句式的数据，但受访者反复给出的回答总是不符合他的预期。埃弗里特当时在心里暗暗抱怨：“这家伙怎么听不懂？他在搞什么，难道他脑子笨吗？”随着日后对语言掌握的深入，埃弗里特才恍然大悟：对方当年给出的恰恰是极其精准、完全切题的语言素材，反而是自诩攻读博士学位的自己“太愚蠢”，以至于未能理解对方的意思。一个狩猎采集者不仅智力上丝毫不亚于学院学者，而且往往比学者自己更清楚真实语言的表达规律。 ### [02:24:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8658s) 语言学演示、高强消耗与传教资金的悖论为了向学界展示田野语言学的实际运作，埃弗里特常在公开学术会议上举办单语田野演示（monolingual field demonstration），有时台下坐着多达500名语言学家。在台上，面对一个自己完全陌生的语言发音者，埃弗里特现场将思维切换为皮拉罕语式的单语破冰模式，仅凭手势、道具和互动，在20至30分钟内就能推导并向听众讲解该语言的基础语法规则和核心词汇。 - **超高强度的脑力负荷**：许多人将这种演示视为不可思议的“魔术”，但埃弗里特解释这完全依靠长年累月的机械化训练。现场极度紧绷的专注力常常让他在演示后头痛欲裂，因为大脑必须在毫秒间不断自我纠错，将原本宽泛的词义层层剥离收窄。观众看到的行云流水，实则是他二十余年深厚功力的浓缩展现。 - **科研经费的现实困境**：虽然埃弗里特的后期研究获得了美国国家科学基金会（NSF）、巴西国家科学发展委员会以及英国相关科研机构的资金支持，但他指出，绝大多数人类学家根本无法在丛林驻留那么多年，核心原因在于缺乏长期资助。 - **教会资助与文化荒诞**：埃弗里特早期能够深耕亚马逊，完全依赖基督教会的传教经费支持。然而，这种资助伴随着荒唐的冲突。在得克萨斯州达拉斯的一所教会汇报时，埃弗里特展示了皮拉罕人的田野幻灯片，台下的信徒却纷纷愤怒离席，指责他“毫无成效”且“根本不算个合格的传教士”。信徒们质问：“这些原住民怎么还赤身裸体？你为什么没教他们穿上衣服？”埃弗里特只能无奈地回答：“因为他们自己根本就不想穿衣服。” ### [02:27:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8850s) 羞耻感、遮羞布与身体观念的文化差异教会的人曾质问丹尼尔·埃弗里特（Daniel Everett），为什么圣经要求人们穿衣服，他却没有让皮拉罕人穿上衣服。对方反驳称：“亚当看到了夏娃的赤身露体，他们彼此感到羞耻。人必须穿衣服，你甚至连基督教最基础的教义都没教给他们。”埃弗里特心里暗想，这根本不属于他理解的核心教义。在丛林里，皮拉罕男人仅系一条极窄的缠腰带，有时甚至短了几英寸、身体部位若隐若现。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）指出，他们戴缠腰布根本不是出于遮羞，而是为了防止在茂密丛林中行走时树枝戳伤阴茎。在没有现代服饰遮掩的文化中，羞耻与色情的定义完全不同。埃弗里特解释道，对一个皮拉罕成年男性来说，女性的乳房“就和手肘一样不具备性吸引力”。母亲给婴儿哺乳，喂完后乳房依然露在外面，大家照样自然地交谈，没有人在意，久而久之局外人也会对此习以为常。埃弗里特指出，反而是衣服制造了窥视欲与肉欲的烦恼，全裸反而消解了色欲问题。然而，这种人类学洞察对教条化的教会来说极难接受，许多教会往往缺乏耐心去理解这种文化逻辑。 --- ### [02:28:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8924s) 田野调查的困境与理论语言学的脱节科学机构的资助体制同样脱离实际。例如美国国家科学基金会（NSF），当埃弗里特申请五年经费去深入研究一门未知语言时，对方往往表示只能资助一年。但深入田野一年的学者根本无法掌握这门语言，资助方却认为“那就去别处找钱吧”。罗根对此感到荒谬，并询问世界上到底有多少学者愿意从事这种极其艰苦的长期田野工作。埃弗里特表示，全球现存约 8000 种语言，而全世界的专业语言学家大概只有 2000 到 5000 人，其中仅有极少部分人愿意去偏远丛林做扎实的田野调查。绝大多数人更倾向于做诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）式的理论研究——坐在书桌前，凭空假设“语言具有属性 A，因此必定具备属性 B”，理论从未与现实发生碰撞。埃弗里特甚至提到了自己的儿子：他的儿子也是一名语言学家，从小随父母在皮拉罕部落长大，博士论文也研究了另一门土著语言并掌握了其口语。但如今儿子通过大型数据库进行统计学归纳，尽管成果很有价值，但他明确对父亲表示，自己再也不想重返丛林做田野了，因为那种环境实在太艰辛了。 --- ### [02:30:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9017s) 语言消亡、分化与未被记录的“文明图书馆” 世界上究竟还有多少人类未知的语言和文化规则？埃弗里特回顾道，20 世纪 80 年代学界统计全球约有 5000 种语言，如今这一数字修正到了约 8000 种。目前语言消亡的速度极为惊人，大约每两周就有一门语言彻底绝迹，一旦消失，其承载的所有认知和文化信息将永远无法复原。与此同时，新语言也在地理和社交隔离中不断产生。正如埃弗里特所言，“你跟谁说话，你的语言就随谁”。 - **语言分化的机制**：西班牙语和葡萄牙语之所以分化为不同语言，是因为伊比利亚半岛的埃布罗河等天然地理屏障让两群人停止了交流；拉丁语分化为法语和罗马尼亚语，日耳曼方言演变为英语，皆源于交流的中断。英式英语与美式英语也在分化，只是现代电视、电影等大众媒介在某种程度上延缓了这种分裂。 - **未被探索的部落**：罗根震惊于世上竟有大量从未与外界交流的族群。埃弗里特推测，目前世界上大概有上千个部落从未有人涉足，更有两三千个部落从未有任何科学家去系统调查过他们的语言与文化。 - **语言即信息宝库**：埃弗里特感叹，人类对鸟类或濒危物种的灭绝感到担忧，却对语言的消亡漠不关心。每一门语言都是一座图书馆，当部落改说葡萄牙语时，原本嵌入在原住民词汇里的生态认知就彻底流失了。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 语言演化与知识承载关系图 accDescr: 展示群体隔离如何导致语言分化，以及语言消亡对人类本土生态知识造成的不可逆破坏。 subgraph 分化机制 ["语言的演化机制"] A["群体因地理/社会隔离停止交流"] --> B["言语系统逐渐分化演进"] B --> C["形成独立新语言（如西语/葡语分化）"] end subgraph 知识载体 ["语言作为文明图书馆"] D["本土生态经验编码在特有词汇中"] --> E["精细物种命名与捕猎/生存知识"] F["强制改用主流通用语（如葡语）"] --> G["特有分类体系与环境知识断代灭绝"] end ``` 这种知识损失的具体体现非常惊人。皮拉罕族无论男女老幼，都能叫得出丛林中每一种动植物的具体物种名称。埃弗里特走在丛林里，指着一棵植物，对方说出专属名字；埃弗里特记录下英语词“Tree”（树），对方又指着另一棵，埃弗里特依旧回答“Tree”。皮拉罕人极其困惑：你们怎么能对截然不同的东西用同一个词？埃弗里特解释说也有美国人知道具体名字，只是自己不知道，但皮拉罕人觉得对身边的生存环境一无所知简直不可思议。埃弗里特的一位朋友曾研究亚马逊另一个族群对鸟类的分类方式：他们不按西方解剖学分类，而是完全依据鸟类吃什么来归类。掌握了这种语言分类法，就能精确知晓鸟类的食性、觅食路线与捕捉方式。语言一旦消亡，就犹如美国国会图书馆被彻底炸毁。 --- ### [02:34:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9260s) 田野工作的艰辛与语言习得实战方法为什么深入田野如此困难？埃弗里特打趣说，如果你要求一个 24 或 25 岁极其聪颖的博士生：“去亚马逊丛林里待三四年吧”，学生多半会拒绝，因为坐在办公室里同样能找到教职。当教授虽然工资不高，但工作体面舒适，根本算不上繁重的体力劳动。埃弗里特年轻时曾开过手持风镐打碎路面，他直言：“我情愿当教授熬夜写论文，也绝不想去打风镐，打风镐比这苦得多。” 讽刺的是，人类学家往往比语言学家更愿意深入田野。埃弗里特坦言，他认识的能流利说当地土著语言的人类学家，数量远多于能说当地语言的语言学家。他将这一怪象归咎于现代语言学某些理论流派带来的有害影响——那些理论让学者产生了一种错觉，以为不需要学会说一门语言，仅靠几条抽象规则就能弄懂它的底层结构。埃弗里特为此专门写过一本田野调查指南。他强调，研究者进入田野的前六个月根本不需要做大量学术笔记，唯一的任务就是沉浸下来学说话： - **每日目标**：他在皮带扣上别着一本小小的线圈笔记本，每天强制自己学习并记下 10 个新单词。 - **晚上复习**：利用夜晚时间死记硬背这些词汇的发音与含义。 - **实战造句**：第二天尝试把新词串成句子和当地人交谈。如果对方哄堂大笑，就说明自己用错了。 - **文化恶作剧**：当地人特别喜欢故意教外来者脏话或生殖器词汇，然后看着埃弗里特在众人面前出洋相、捧腹大笑。这也让如何严肃、准确地向原住民请教生殖器等隐私词汇，成了田野调查中极其尴尬却避不开的趣事。 ### [02:36:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9375s) 语言田野调查中的身体部位词汇与成年礼界限 Daniel Everett 回忆起自己初入丛林进行语言田野调查时一段既尴尬又极具启发性的经历。当时他试图调查关于身体器官的词汇，便直接向一位部落成年男性询问隐私部位该怎么称呼，甚至直截了当地指着对方的下体问：“你把那个叫什么？”对方当场拒绝直接回答他，说道：“我可不会告诉你。”但紧接着，那名男子叫来了一个光着身子的小男孩，把男孩全身的各个部位逐一指给 Everett 看，耐心地讲解这个部位叫什么、那个部位叫什么。然而这名男子随即向 Everett 揭示了一个关键的语言学规则：一旦孩子开始长出体毛，这些部位的名称就会发生改变。换句话说，在皮拉罕语中，小男孩的生殖器与成年男性的生殖器有着截然不同的词汇表达；同样地，小女孩的生殖器官与成年女性的生殖器官所对应的词也完全不同。Everett 感慨道，像这种极度私密且充满文化细微差异的词汇，研究者不可能单凭简单的提问就能轻易获得，而必须完全依赖与当地族人建立起来的深厚友谊与信任。 - 皮拉罕语中关于性器官的词汇并非固定不变，而是以是否进入青春期、长出体毛为分界线，男童与成年男子、女童与成年女性的生殖器各有独立的专用词汇。 - 田野语言学家在采集禁忌或隐私词汇时，往往无法通过常规翻译直接索取，必须依靠部落成员的变通指导以及长期的信任关系。 ### [02:36:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9411s) 总结与告别：“别睡，这里有蛇” Joe Rogan 由衷地感叹 Everett 拥有不可思议且极其精彩的人生经历，并对他今天倾囊相授的分享表示由衷感谢。随后 Rogan 让导播 Jamie 在屏幕上展示 Everett 的著作，特别提到了他的经典代表作《别睡，这里有蛇：亚马逊丛林的生活与语言》（*Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle*）。 Everett 顺势解释了这本著名书名的真实文化内涵：在皮拉罕人的部落生活中，这句话并非一句吓人的警告，而是他们每晚临睡前互道晚安的方式——大家在睡觉前互致一声“别睡，这里有蛇”（Don't sleep. There are snakes）。Rogan 赞叹这真是太神奇了，再次向 Everett 表达了谢意并热情道别，圆满结束了整场对谈。 ## Notable quotes > [11:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=693s) 我把肉储存在我兄弟的肚子里。 — 皮拉罕族人 > [25:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1543s) 她今晚就会死，我们没有手段能保住她的命了。 — 主治医生 > [48:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=2923s) 长期的经历告诉我，高智商绝非愚蠢的解毒剂，一个人完全可以既绝顶聪明又极度愚蠢。 — 丹尼尔·埃弗雷特 > [53:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=3220s) 一个都没有（NOBODY）。 — 丹尼尔·埃弗雷特 > [01:00:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=3653s) 你在跟我说话吗？那已经不是我的名字了。 — 皮拉罕族人（卡帕里） > [01:04:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=3887s) 哦，耶稣昨晚来我们村子了！他长着一根三英尺长的生殖器，到处追着想插村里的所有女人。所以，女人们再也不想听到任何关于耶稣的事了。 — 皮拉罕族人 > [01:07:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4037s) 哈哈，你现在可算变得跟我们一样了！ — 皮拉罕族人 > [01:25:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5117s) 我又不是婴儿。 — 皮拉罕妇女 > [01:34:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5652s) 我再也不相信这些东西了，我真的信不下去了。 — 丹尼尔·埃弗雷特 > [01:38:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5888s) 他是我的兄弟，我能对他做什么？他不该开枪打死我的狗，但他喝醉了，脑子不清醒。我爱我的狗，但我更爱我的兄弟，我绝不会伤害他。 — 皮拉罕族人 > [01:52:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6732s) 那我就死吧，反正我绝不回医院，我宁愿回到我的族人身边死去。 — 皮拉罕族人 > [02:18:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8317s) 在我的使命完成之前，我是不朽的。 — 基督教传教士格言 > [02:20:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8405s) 你必须先把它碎尸万段，并且甘愿当上好几年的白痴。 — 丹尼尔·埃弗雷特 > [02:36:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9411s) 别睡，这里有蛇。 — 皮拉罕族人晚安互致语 ## Mentioned 丹尼尔·埃弗雷特 (Daniel Everett), 乔·罗根 (Joe Rogan), 诺姆·乔姆斯基 (Noam Chomsky), 吉米·亨德里克斯 (Jimi Hendrix), 斯万特·佩博 (Svante Pääbo), 库尔特·尼穆恩达茹 (Curt Nimuendajú), 罗伯特·贝德纳里克 (Robert Bednarik), 拉里·巴勒姆 (Larry Barham), 汤姆·沃尔夫 (Tom Wolfe), 马克·吐温 (Mark Twain), 沃纳·赫尔佐格 (Werner Herzog), 保罗·西蒙 (Paul Simon), 威克理夫圣经翻译会 (Wycliffe Bible Translators), 卫斯理公会 (Wesleyan Church), 巴西国家印第安人基金会 (FUNAI), 麻省理工学院 (MIT), 马克斯·普朗克进化人类学研究所 (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology), 美国国家科学基金会 (NSF), 美国语言学会 (Linguistic Society of America), 匹兹堡大学 (University of Pittsburgh), 皮拉罕人 (Pirahã), 瓦里族 (Wari'), 巴纳瓦人 (Banawá), 策尔塔尔人 (Tzeltal), 迈希河 (Maici River), 恰帕斯 (Chiapas), 韦柳港 (Porto Velho), 《别睡，这里有蛇：亚马逊丛林的生活与语言》 (Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes), 《语言是如何开始的》 (How Language Began), 《河流之子》 (Born of the River), 《语言王国》 (The Kingdom of Speech), 《句法理论的若干问题》 (Aspects of the Theory of Syntax), 《幸福的语法》 (The Grammar of Happiness), 《当代人类学》 (Current Anthropology), 《明镜周刊》 (Der Spiegel), 《纽约客》 (The New Yorker), AG1 Pro, BlueChew, Perplexity ## Video description Daniel Everett, PhD, is a linguist and college professor. He is the author of several books, including “Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle” and “How Language Began: The Story of Humanity’s Greatest Invention.” https://daneverettbooks.com Perplexity: Download the app or ask Perplexity anything at https://pplx.ai/rogan. Get a free welcome kit with your first subscription of AG1 at drinkag1.com/joerogan Use code ROGAN at https://BlueChew.com to get 10% OFF + Free Overnight Shipping on your first order. [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU)

Source quotes

[11:33] 皮拉罕族人: 我把肉储存在我兄弟的肚子里。 [25:43] 主治医生: 她今晚就会死，我们没有手段能保住她的命了。 [48:43] 丹尼尔·埃弗雷特: 长期的经历告诉我，高智商绝非愚蠢的解毒剂，一个人完全可以既绝顶聪明又极度愚蠢。 [53:40] 丹尼尔·埃弗雷特: 一个都没有（NOBODY）。 [60:53] 皮拉罕族人（卡帕里）: 你在跟我说话吗？那已经不是我的名字了。 [64:47] 皮拉罕族人: 哦，耶稣昨晚来我们村子了！他长着一根三英尺长的生殖器，到处追着想插村里的所有女人。所以，女人们再也不想听到任何关于耶稣的事了。 [67:17] 皮拉罕族人: 哈哈，你现在可算变得跟我们一样了！ [85:17] 皮拉罕妇女: 我又不是婴儿。 [94:12] 丹尼尔·埃弗雷特: 我再也不相信这些东西了，我真的信不下去了。 [98:08] 皮拉罕族人: 他是我的兄弟，我能对他做什么？他不该开枪打死我的狗，但他喝醉了，脑子不清醒。我爱我的狗，但我更爱我的兄弟，我绝不会伤害他。 [112:12] 皮拉罕族人: 那我就死吧，反正我绝不回医院，我宁愿回到我的族人身边死去。 [138:37] 基督教传教士格言: 在我的使命完成之前，我是不朽的。 [140:05] 丹尼尔·埃弗雷特: 你必须先把它碎尸万段，并且甘愿当上好几年的白痴。 [156:51] 皮拉罕族人晚安互致语: 别睡，这里有蛇。

Source quotes

[9:04] Daniel Everett: I reached a clearing in the jungle and I saw a deer come out running straight for him. And at first he was happy... then he realized deer don't just come running out of the jungle towards people. And then right behind the deer came a jaguar. [22:25] Daniel Everett: I took in a big long horn of tobacco... probably 8 feet or 9 feet long, just rolled up tight tobacco wrapped in latex. You just cut it off for them and they chew it. [53:40] Daniel Everett: They have a high standard of evidence and I didn't meet that standard. [67:00] Pirahã villagers: We don't want to hear about this anymore. [67:00] Pirahã men: Now you're like us. [77:56] Mark Twain: Religion started when the first con man made the first sucker. [84:40] Pirahã villagers: He's dead. What else is there? We die. [84:40] Pirahã woman: I'm not a baby. [94:16] Apostle Thomas: Lord, I believe; help my unbelief [98:08] Pirahã man: I miss my dog, I love my dog, but I love my brother. I'm not going to hurt my brother. He was drunk and his head wasn't working. [111:49] Pirahã patient: I'm going to die then, because I'm not going back... I would rather go back and die with my people. [129:05] Daniel Everett: That night I was up with things coming out of both ends all night long. And the next morning my blood pressure was 60 over 40. And I had to be flown out. They had to get me on a mule and get me out to the nearest airstrip. [153:33] Daniel Everett: Don't sleep, there are snakes.

Original transcript

[0:01] Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. [0:04] >> The Joe Rogan Experience. [0:06] >> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY [0:08] NIGHT. All day. [0:12] >> Rolling. Good to see you, sir. [0:14] >> Good to be here. [0:15] >> Thank you very much for doing this. I'm [0:16] really excited to talk to you. I've been [0:18] looking forward to this a lot. [0:19] >> Yeah. Thanks very much for having me. [0:21] >> You have a very very unique life story. [0:24] Um, so I want we're I want to start with [0:28] how did you be you became let's lay it [0:31] out for people. What got me interested [0:33] in you is you became a Christian [0:36] missionary and then went to the jungle [0:40] and met these people. Let me say this [0:42] right. The pahai [0:43] >> paha [0:44] >> paha paha [0:46] >> and stopped being a missionary and lived [0:49] with them for how long? Well, the total [0:52] time that I lived with him is about [0:54] eight years in the jungle with them o [0:56] over a period, but I've been working [0:57] with him for 40 years. I go back a lot. [1:00] >> Wow. And but you lived with them for [1:03] eight years. And during that 8-year time [1:05] period, you kind of would you is it safe [1:09] to say you're an atheist? [1:10] >> Yes, it's safe to say that. [1:11] >> And so for let's take it back to the [1:13] beginning. How did you become a [1:14] missionary? Were did you come from a [1:16] religious family? [1:17] >> No, I came from a very unreligious [1:20] family. I was um in fact I was standing [1:23] out in front of a Jimmyi Hendricks [1:24] concert in 1968 trying to sell LSD to [1:27] get in and uh and this guy that I knew [1:31] from high school that was really [1:32] straight lace came up with his sister [1:33] and she was very cute and so I went up [1:36] to try to sell them some LSD. They [1:37] didn't use drugs and so I said, "Well, [1:39] you got any change? I need to get some [1:41] money to get into the concert." And I I [1:43] saw that she went to the same high [1:45] school that I did. So, uh, after the [1:48] concert, which she didn't like, but I [1:49] loved, uh, I I went to see her in high [1:52] school. I went sat by her during [1:53] lunchtime and, uh, found out that she [1:56] was a missionary and had been raised in [1:58] Brazil. And that really intrigued me [2:01] because it was the 60s and I was, you [2:04] know, didn't want to have just the [2:06] typical US life and living in the Amazon [2:10] sounded really cool. But then I became, [2:12] you know, a genuine, strong, believing [2:14] Christian. uh went to Bible school. I [2:17] did my undergraduate degree in Bible and [2:19] theology and I was an ordained minister [2:22] in the Wesleyan church and very active [2:25] in church and um was preached on street [2:28] corners and did all that kind of thing. [2:30] Um, [2:30] >> how did you make that this transition [2:33] from being a guy with a bag of acid in [2:35] front of a a Jimmyi Hendricks concert to [2:38] >> Well, her father, who had been a [2:40] missionary now for 20 years, was the [2:42] most influential person outside my [2:45] family in my life. And he and I would [2:47] sit up late at night talking. And, you [2:50] know, I was 17 and I found everything he [2:53] said to be very convincing and very [2:55] interesting. But mainly I loved his [2:57] stories of the jungle and what it was [2:59] like to live in the jungle and I wanted [3:01] to do that and I became a believer. Um [3:05] it was a gradual process. Well actually [3:07] no it wasn't that gradual. It was my [3:09] father was just astounded. He said you [3:11] know from one minute I'm worrying about [3:13] you getting arrested and now you're [3:15] going to church every Sunday with these [3:16] people I don't even know. He wasn't that [3:18] happy about it. Um [3:20] >> he'd rather you just get loaded in front [3:21] of the Hendricks concert. Yeah, he would [3:24] have actually because he was a heavy [3:25] drinker and a construction worker and he [3:27] considered that to be part of the [3:29] masculine experience, you know, [3:31] >> but acid was acid okay with him. [3:33] >> I don't think he knew I was doing acid, [3:35] but he knew I was doing, you know, weed [3:37] and and things like that, but [3:39] >> and he didn't mind that. [3:40] >> No, that was he didn't want me doing it [3:42] in the house, which I did. But, uh, [3:44] >> so your rebellion was to become an [3:46] outstanding citizen and a Christian [3:49] missionary, [3:49] >> right? That was my greatest form of [3:51] rebellion against the life I had been [3:53] leading. Yeah. [3:53] >> Interesting. [3:55] >> Yeah. That's what happens when parents [3:56] push their kids into a certain [3:57] direction. [3:59] Little people don't like being told what [4:01] to do. [4:01] >> Yeah. [4:02] >> So, um so you immediately, it seems like [4:07] >> go become a Christian and and then how [4:10] long before you were actually doing [4:11] missionary work in the jungle? [4:13] >> Well, there's a lot of training you have [4:14] to do. So, first I had to do four years [4:16] of college, uh, Bible and theology, and [4:19] then I had to do some linguistics [4:20] training. Um, and then, uh, not not a [4:24] graduate degree or anything like that, [4:26] just some linguistics training from the [4:28] missionary organization because I wanted [4:29] to be a Bible translator. [4:31] >> And then we did jungle training in [4:33] southern Mexico. So, we went to the [4:35] jungles of Chiapas and had to do [4:37] survival training and all of this. [4:39] >> Whoa. What do you have to do there? [4:41] >> Well, there are several phases to it. [4:43] the family goes and the family's part of [4:45] it, but the hardest thing is um to [4:47] really see how much you've learned. They [4:49] take you on what's called survival hike [4:51] and they leave you alone for about a [4:52] week in the jungle. You don't not [4:54] allowed to take any food or any supplies [4:57] of any kind [4:58] >> for a week. [4:58] >> Yeah. For a week or more. You don't [5:00] know. It's going to be at least a week. [5:02] Uh in my case, it was about 10 days. Um [5:06] and uh you've got to set up your camp [5:09] how best you can figure out how to get a [5:11] fire going. Do they teach you how to do [5:13] all this stuff? They don't just like [5:14] figure it out. [5:15] >> This is like the final exam. So, you've [5:17] had you've had almost four months of [5:19] training [5:20] >> before they finally take you out on [5:22] their survival. [5:23] >> Do you have water? [5:25] >> You you have maybe a a quart of water [5:27] when you leave, but you're going to be [5:29] out there for 10 days, so you've got to [5:30] find water. So, we learned which vines [5:32] have water and how to cut the vines. We [5:34] did have a machete, so I was able to [5:37] jump up and cut a vine uh at the top [5:39] first and then at the bottom. And [5:41] >> and no one's monitoring you. They're [5:43] just leaving you out there and they're [5:44] not making sure you're okay. [5:46] >> No, they just come along when the time's [5:47] up and if you're there, you're there, [5:49] you know. [5:49] >> Oh boy. And if you're not, you're dead. [5:52] >> You could be. Uh [5:53] >> so they didn't even That's insane. [5:56] >> Yeah. Well, this is what happens when [5:59] you live by faith. You know, you're [6:00] you're out there um and God's supposed [6:03] to be supervising your training, but [6:05] it's really rigorous training. So by the [6:07] time I actually got to the Amazon, which [6:09] was eight years after I converted, took [6:11] that long. Um, [6:14] it felt like I was coming home. I wasn't [6:15] surprised by things. [6:17] >> Well, the training was good then. I [6:18] mean, I would I would imagine if you [6:20] really want someone to be able to [6:21] survive alone in the jungle. Best way to [6:23] do it is to test them by making them [6:25] survive alone in the jungle so that you [6:27] get an actual version of the experience. [6:30] It's not simulated. You're actually you [6:32] actually are getting water from vines. [6:34] What were you eating? Um, well, I [6:36] learned different kinds of plants that [6:38] you could eat. And then I learned how to [6:41] make um with a stick, you know, with [6:44] like to, you know, make a stick the size [6:46] of a toothpick sharpened on both ends. [6:48] And and I did have some fishing line and [6:50] I would attach that to that. And I was [6:53] so proud of myself because I brought up [6:55] two fish that were about three inches [6:57] long and I ate those and ma most of the [7:00] time I ate plants and went hungry. So [7:02] when I see the programs like alone, um [7:06] I'm that that wouldn't bother me. That's [7:09] the kind of stuff we had to do. [7:11] >> They didn't even give you fish hooks. [7:13] >> No, you're not. You can't have that kind [7:15] of stuff. You have to learn to cope on [7:17] your own. You got to make your own. [7:18] You've got to be able to recognize the [7:20] plants, which ones are poisonous, which [7:21] ones are not poisonous. And [7:23] >> did you try to make like a bow and arrow [7:24] or anything? [7:25] >> Yeah. Yeah. And you did. I did. I made a [7:27] bow and arrow. Um [7:28] >> how did you do that? Um, well, I had a [7:30] machete and that's what I had. [7:33] >> It's crazy. They give you a machete, [7:34] they won't give you a fish hooks. Like, [7:36] come on, guys. [7:36] >> Yeah. Well, machetes are so much easier [7:38] to carry, [7:39] >> right? But the machete you need for [7:41] firewood, you need for lots of things. [7:43] Um, [7:44] >> you know, when I got to the Amazon, what [7:46] >> do you have a lighter? [7:47] >> Uh, no. [7:48] >> How you making fires? [7:49] >> Well, I had just there they let me take [7:52] just a few matches. [7:53] >> Oh, Lord. And so no lighter but a few [7:57] matches which you kept in a 35mm film [8:00] >> uh those little people know about those [8:03] things those little containers. [8:04] >> Yeah. [8:04] >> How many matches they give you for 10 [8:06] days? [8:07] >> Well that you had one of those little [8:09] containers with about 10 15 matches in [8:12] it at the most. [8:12] >> Oh boy. [8:14] >> So you got a match a day. [8:15] >> You got to keep your fire going all the [8:16] time. You always have to keep that fire [8:18] going. So before you start it you spend [8:20] half the day just cutting firewood. And [8:22] I would imagine it's very wet. [8:25] >> It's all wet. So, you've got to find [8:27] something dry to get it going. And as [8:31] they told us, [8:32] >> keep it going. [8:32] >> Yeah. They said once it's hot enough, [8:34] it'll burn anything. But until it gets [8:36] hot, you can't just throw that wet wood [8:38] on there. It'll put it out. Uh, so you [8:41] know, you have to spend a lot of time [8:42] exploring, trying to find dry, crackly [8:45] wood and leaves and things and get it [8:46] going and then slowly introduce the [8:48] thinner pieces of wet wood until finally [8:51] you can throw on a sping log on there. [8:53] >> So, a big part of your day essentially [8:55] is making sure that fire stays lit. [8:57] >> Yeah, [8:57] >> that's a big part of your day. And you [8:59] can't get too far from it. [9:00] >> No, you have to stay fairly close to it. [9:02] And at night, you definitely want to [9:04] keep it going. So, I remember one night [9:05] waking up and hearing [9:07] >> heavy steps around my camp and uh I was [9:11] up immediately blowing on that fire for [9:14] everything I was worth to get that thing [9:16] up. [9:16] >> Yeah. Was it Jaguars? [9:20] >> I suspect that it could have been, [9:21] although I didn't see it. I had my [9:23] machete, which when I got to the Amazon [9:26] and actually saw Jaguars, I realized [9:28] that would have been a pretty pathetic [9:30] thing to try go against a Jaguar with a [9:33] machete. They would rip your head off [9:35] before [9:35] >> everybody likes to think they have a [9:37] chance though. [9:37] >> Yeah. Yeah. But what I found out is [9:39] jaguars, you know, they get up to 400 [9:42] pounds and they're the third biggest cat [9:44] in the world after the lion and the [9:45] tiger. And they often hunt in pairs. [9:49] >> And so you don't you wouldn't have a [9:51] chance against a jaguar unless you were [9:53] one of the peda. I've I know that guys [9:56] alone by themselves have killed jaguars. [9:58] But uh [9:58] >> really? [9:59] >> Yeah. [9:59] >> What are they using to kill a jaguar? [10:02] Well, they're always with their bows and [10:03] arrows. Um, I I [10:06] >> bow and arrow range for a jaguar. That's [10:08] crazy. [10:08] >> Well, you better have it ready because [10:10] it sneaks up on you. There's another [10:11] group that I worked with for quite quite [10:13] a while, several months called the [10:15] Bonawa, and they use poison darts and [10:18] poisoned arrows. So, there's this story [10:20] of this guy, he went out hunting um and [10:24] uh he he reached a clearing in the [10:26] jungle and he saw a deer come out [10:28] running straight for him. And at first [10:30] he was happy and he was going to kill [10:31] the deer. Then he realized deers don't [10:33] just come running out of the jungle [10:34] towards people. And then right behind [10:36] the deer came a jaguar. And the jaguar [10:40] saw him, the guy, and he was bigger than [10:42] the deer. So the jaguar just took off [10:44] straight for him and jumped up. And the [10:46] guy got his bow, his blow gun out in [10:49] front of him. They're about seven or [10:51] eight feet long, these big blow guns. [10:53] And it's they're very sturdy. And the [10:55] jaguar, he holds it away. The jaguar's [10:58] back legs are tearing this meat off of [11:00] his legs. And the jaguar's head just [11:02] keeps snapping at his face trying to get [11:04] his face. And what saved his life was [11:06] the jaguar jumped off to go around the [11:09] back and try to get him from the back. [11:11] But he had a poisoned arrow and he [11:13] stabbed the jaguar with it and that [11:14] hurts. And the jaguar started to run off [11:16] and then he shot it with a poisoned [11:17] arrow and but he it took he fell he [11:21] passed out and the fam his family found [11:24] him a couple of days later with his uh [11:27] legs just infected and [11:29] >> torn to pieces but he survived. [11:33] And so these pita, would they go hunt [11:36] the jaguars? [11:37] >> If they saw that it was um a danger, if [11:40] if a woman went out and a jaguar or a [11:43] mountain lion [11:45] scared her, the men would go out to kill [11:47] it. So I've eaten jaguar. Uh [11:50] >> what does it taste like? [11:51] >> Uh well um this one was sort of uh this [11:55] was a sick jaguar, but it's stringy [11:57] meat. I mean it's very muscly meat. It's [11:59] not tender. [12:01] Yeah, they that's how they wound up [12:02] killing it. I I found out later. I was [12:04] really impressed. You know, they killed [12:05] the jaguar, but and they have killed [12:07] many jaguars, but this one turned out to [12:09] be a sick jaguar, which is why he [12:10] attacked the woman [12:12] >> like he was starving to death or [12:13] something. [12:14] >> Yeah, he was starving. So, the men [12:15] killed it and ate it. But I did, my [12:17] children were with me this whole time. [12:19] So, I told my children, I said, "Just [12:21] remember who's eating whom?" [12:24] >> What? So, do you remember what it tastes [12:26] like? [12:27] >> Well, it's a it's a stringy meat. It's [12:29] really hard to describe all the all the [12:31] tastes. Monkey [12:32] >> like very sen tough. Yeah. Senoy and [12:34] very tough. Um and uh my general rule of [12:39] thumb I I eat anything that they kill. [12:41] But my general rule of thumb is I [12:42] usually have a bottle of Tabasco sauce [12:44] and and if you put Tabasco sauce on it, [12:47] it's okay. [12:48] >> And so these uh pah, am I saying it [12:51] right? Paha. [12:52] >> That's right. [12:52] >> Um [12:53] >> they don't preserve anything, right? [12:55] They just [12:56] >> kill things and cook them. Yeah, they [12:59] they don't, you know, many many [13:00] different groups smoke the meat or salt [13:02] the meat if they have salt uh or dry it. [13:06] And the pahas know how to do that. I [13:08] don't know where they learn how to do it [13:09] because they never do it except if they [13:11] want to trade the meat with Brazilian [13:13] boats who come up. [13:14] >> But among themselves, they don't [13:15] preserve any meat. You know, I was [13:17] talking to a guy one time and you know, [13:20] why don't you preserve your meat? And he [13:21] says, oh, I preserve it in the belly of [13:23] my brother. Uh, so they share it and if [13:27] I get meat, I give you some and if you [13:29] get meat, you give me some. So why would [13:30] I, [13:31] >> right? So there's no need to store and [13:33] also I guess it's very abundant. There's [13:35] a lot of life where they live like in [13:37] terms of fish and game. [13:39] >> There have been. Yeah. I mean they live [13:41] on this river, the my river and they're [13:44] the only humans that live along the [13:46] river for almost 300 miles of the curvy [13:50] river. And it's a relatively large river [13:52] by US standards. In Brazil, it doesn't [13:54] even make many of the maps, but it's a [13:56] couple of hundred yards across, and in [13:59] the rainy season, it can be as much as [14:02] 75 ft deep, 100 ft deep. Uh, so there's [14:06] plenty of fish for them. In recent [14:08] years, that's changed because the [14:10] Brazilian government has allowed the [14:12] construction of dams across various [14:15] rivers. Not their river, but they affect [14:17] the water level so much that it's taken [14:19] all the fish, most of the fish out of [14:21] their river. So now they're starving and [14:24] this has led to conflict with Brazilians [14:27] who live not too far away and they've [14:29] killed a few people stealing food from [14:31] their farms and things. [14:33] >> Oh man, [14:35] you imagine you just have this kind of [14:38] harmonious existence with nature and [14:40] someone just decides to make a dam. [14:42] >> Like you've got it so dialed in that you [14:44] don't need to preserve your food, right? [14:46] Because everyone's just like happy and [14:48] eating fish right out of the river, [14:50] >> right? And you know that's um they don't [14:54] know where the dam is. They've never [14:55] seen the dam. I told them that they [14:57] built something that crosses the river [14:59] like a wall. And um they say why do they [15:02] do that? And I said well they want [15:04] electricity which they barely [15:05] understand. They've seen I have a [15:07] generator. I I never had one for the [15:09] first 20 years I was working with them. [15:12] But I eventually got a generator and [15:13] they could see what electricity was and [15:15] I said so that's where they get the [15:17] lights. Um but they don't understand it [15:20] and it's affect you know it's for the [15:22] first time in their history and they've [15:24] been living there as far as I can tell [15:25] for almost 300 years um on this one [15:28] river um for the first time in their [15:31] history they can't um be self-sufficient [15:35] in protein. [15:37] That's crazy. And how long ago did they [15:40] build this dam? [15:42] >> I think it was about 10 years ago. Um [15:45] but they didn't when it first went into [15:47] operation then it flooded the entire [15:51] lots of farmland lots of settlements and [15:53] things up on the MA. But what was [15:55] shocking was that way down river from [15:58] the dam it affected the water level so [16:01] much that the when their river the my [16:04] sea goes to its lowest point um in the [16:09] dry season there's still only a few [16:12] places where you can see the bottom of [16:14] the river. Most of the places even when [16:16] it's at its lowest you can't see the [16:18] bottom of the river but in the last [16:20] couple of years it's gotten so low you [16:22] can walk across. [16:23] >> Oh wow. So, and the fish don't stay [16:25] there. [16:28] So, what are these people eating? [16:30] >> Well, they go hunting, which they don't [16:32] like to do. But, of course, when the [16:34] when the fish are gone, and when the [16:36] river's gone, uh you lose a lot of the [16:38] game from the jungle. So, they have to [16:39] go instead of going a mile into the [16:42] jungle, they have to go many miles into [16:44] the jungle, and they're still not [16:46] successful. So, it's busting up [16:49] communities. Some people are moving out [16:50] of their normal area to other areas to [16:53] try to, you know, back on the on bigger [16:55] rivers, but then that means they're [16:57] surrounded by Brazilians and they're no [16:58] longer leading the life that they used [17:01] to lead. [17:04] >> So when they move into these [17:06] civilization areas, are they integrating [17:09] or are they trying to like stay as a [17:12] tribe removed from urban society? Like [17:15] how are they doing it? Well, up until [17:17] about five years ago, um they would [17:20] never have thought about integrating. [17:22] They would live in like ghettos. If they [17:24] if they were out near some town, they [17:27] would live in the jungle away from the [17:28] town because that whole part of Brazil [17:30] is covered in jungle. Even the cities [17:32] are bordered by jungle. [17:33] >> Uh but nowadays, [17:36] because there's no food anywhere, [17:37] they're trying to integrate more. [17:39] They're trying to learn Portuguese. And [17:41] um uh it's um it's a very unfortunate u [17:46] situation for them right now. God, [17:48] that's such a bummer. [17:50] That sucks so hard. So when you first [17:53] got there, your aim was [17:57] to try to convert them to Christianity. [17:59] >> That's right. I went there to translate [18:01] the Bible and plant a church and get [18:03] everybody believing. [18:04] >> And why Peter? Why did you go to those [18:06] people? Well, we were in our training [18:08] and the missionary organization, the [18:10] Wickliff Bible Translators, uh, offered [18:13] us three three areas. They said, "You [18:14] can go to New Guinea. We need people in [18:16] New Guinea. You can go to Mexico or you [18:19] can go to Brazil." And in Brazil, [18:21] there's this tribe called the Paha that [18:23] we've had two teams assigned to, and [18:26] nobody's been able to figure out the [18:27] language because it's not related to any [18:29] other known living language. And so they [18:32] said, "If you're up for that challenge, [18:33] and we know you did well in linguistics, [18:35] uh, we'd be happy to have you take that [18:37] group." So I thought, "Well, sure. I'm [18:40] up for a challenge." So we took that. [18:42] >> And so this was 1977. [18:46] >> 1977. [18:47] >> We were assigned there in 76 and I made [18:50] my first trip in in December of 1977. [18:53] >> And so how much of the language did you [18:55] know before you got there? [18:57] >> Nothing. [18:58] >> Nothing. [18:58] >> No. Is it what what do we know in terms [19:00] of like before you got there? Was it [19:03] recorded? Was it something that people [19:05] understood? Take your training to the [19:07] next level with AG1's new product, AG1 [19:10] Pro. It's back and it's already sold out [19:12] once, so get it now. AG1 Pro takes the [19:16] original nextG formula, the vitamins, [19:19] minerals, adaptogens, pre and [19:21] probiotics, and more, and packs in even [19:24] more support for physical performance. [19:26] It adds 5 g of creavitalis creatine [19:29] monohydrate and HMBB to reduce protein [19:33] breakdown and support recovery. They've [19:35] also added zinc carnosine for even more [19:38] gut support. It's one drink more [19:40] effective and it's NSF certified for [19:42] sport so you know exactly what's in it. [19:45] The training's only half of it. Recovery [19:47] is where the gains actually compound. [19:50] AG1 Pro is built for both. Go to [19:53] drinkagg1.com/joan [19:56] to get a free AG1 Proshaker in your [19:59] ProWelcome kit. That's [20:01] drinkagg.com/joengan. [20:05] Yeah. Uh in 1784, [20:08] Portuguese explorers uh made contact and [20:11] they didn't take lists of words. They [20:13] they wrote a few descriptive things [20:15] about the language and about the people. [20:18] Um and those things still fit them [20:20] today. Um and then in 1821 a German [20:24] explorer went there and he took a long [20:26] list of words which was amazing because [20:28] he didn't have linguistics or anything [20:30] like that and um his list of words is [20:34] pretty good. Uh and then in 1920 [20:38] um another German who naturalized [20:40] Brazilian uh the the founder of [20:42] Brazilian anthropology uh went there and [20:45] took a much larger word list and that [20:48] one is very good. And so I had those [20:50] little word lists. They're not much and [20:52] there's no how does the grammar work or [20:54] anything like that. It's just lists of [20:56] words. So I had looked at those but they [20:59] it's a tone language and so they hadn't [21:02] written the tone. So I had no idea how [21:03] to pronounce the words. You know to give [21:06] you an example of what a tone language [21:07] is. Um so if I want to say friend I say [21:12] mi and if I want to say enemy it's magi. [21:16] Uh, and uh, [21:18] >> what's the difference? [21:19] >> So, if I whistle it, friend is, [21:22] and if I whistle enemy, it's [21:26] if you can't hear the tones, you don't [21:28] know what's going on. So, the word for [21:31] for me is u ch. And the word for [ __ ] is [21:36] ch. Uh, so, you know, you can be talking [21:39] about yourself and everybody starts [21:41] laughing because you've called yourself [21:43] >> [ __ ] [21:43] >> [ __ ] um [21:44] >> because you have the wrong tone. [21:46] >> Because you have the wrong tone. So, you [21:48] know, there are a lot of tone languages [21:49] in the world. Mandarin's tonal, Korean [21:51] somewhat tonal, and many languages of [21:53] Africa are tonal. But for those of us [21:56] who speak European languages, this is [21:58] just really weird and it's hard to hear. [22:01] Uh [22:01] >> like a complete mind shift. [22:03] >> Yeah. So, you've got to you've got to be [22:06] able to pay attention to those tones. [22:08] And so, um but the first thing you have [22:11] to do is start just collecting words. So [22:13] I would point at things my first day, my [22:15] first hour, I was pointing at things and [22:17] writing down what they said. And that [22:19] was the basic linguistics I had had, [22:21] phonetics, how to write down sounds of [22:24] the world's languages. [22:25] >> And when you got there, so on day one, [22:29] how do you make a connection? Do you [22:31] just show up? Hey, brought you the [22:32] Bible. Everyone have a seat. How do you [22:34] do this? [22:35] >> Well, I I got off and I started handing [22:38] candy to the kids. Um, good move. [22:40] >> That works. Um, and the people were very [22:43] curious because I'm this white guy with [22:47] red hair. At that time, I had bright red [22:49] hair and uh they found me curious to [22:52] look at. And uh so they came around, [22:54] they could tell, you know, at least I I [22:56] think they thought they could tell that [22:57] I was no danger to them. Um they know [23:00] how to deal with that very quickly if [23:02] they sensed danger. But um uh so then I [23:05] would just start pointing at things. I [23:06] had I had my pen and paper and I would I [23:10] would get a stick and I would say in [23:12] English, you know, stick and they know [23:15] that I'm trying to communicate [23:16] something. So they would say back and I [23:18] thought it probably means stick and I [23:20] would write that down and then I would [23:22] take the stick and drop it and they [23:24] would say [23:26] and that means stick fell to the ground [23:28] and that's what I thought it meant. So [23:30] that's how I started. [23:32] >> That's what you thought it meant. Um, [23:34] what is the reaction to this person [23:36] coming in and demanding that they teach [23:38] the language? [23:40] >> Well, I didn't demand [23:42] >> well that you know you you have a [23:44] requirement. You can't communicate, but [23:46] you're there. So, they're kind enough to [23:48] welcome you. [23:49] >> Yes. [23:49] >> Are you in the actual camp with all [23:51] these people? [23:52] >> Yeah, I'm in the middle of their [23:53] village. The plane let me off on, you [23:55] know, landed on the river. I got out. [23:57] >> You don't even ask. You just like wander [23:59] into their camp. [24:00] >> There's no way to contact them ahead of [24:01] time. [24:02] >> This is crazy. Yeah. [24:03] >> And you're just assuming they're not [24:04] going to kill you. Is this you? [24:06] >> This is the paha. This is a paha [24:08] village. Yep. [24:08] >> And so this is what it looked like when [24:10] you showed up. You're like, "Hi, what's [24:12] a stick?" [24:12] >> Yeah. Yeah. You land you land on the [24:14] river and and you get there and that is [24:17] uh that's the pita. [24:18] >> Wow. [24:19] >> And um [24:20] >> Wow. [24:20] >> So they're very friendly and they start [24:22] talking. Um but of course I don't know [24:26] what they say. They just see me as a [24:27] very [24:28] >> He's got a Ferrari t-shirt on. What's [24:30] up? [24:30] >> Yeah. They uh river boats go in and give [24:34] clothes. If if a river boat hasn't been [24:36] there in a long time, they'll all be [24:37] naked. [24:38] >> Oh, wow. [24:39] >> So, [24:40] >> and so [24:42] like day one, they just accept the fact [24:46] that this red-headed dude just showed up [24:49] and is hanging out with us now. [24:50] >> Yeah, there were a couple of things that [24:52] counted in my favor. I was all by myself [24:54] and so um giving out candy was a big [24:56] factor. Uh they like to chew tobacco. Uh [25:00] and I had been told this by somebody who [25:02] had been there. So I took in a big long [25:05] horn of tobacco. I don't know if you [25:07] ever This is really oldfashioned way [25:08] >> a horn like a like an animal horn. [25:11] >> No, it's it looks like an animal horn, [25:12] but it's um it's probably 8 feet 9 ft [25:16] long just rolled up tight tobacco [25:18] wrapped in latex. And uh Really? [25:21] >> Yeah. And you just cut it off for them [25:22] and they chew it and they like it. So, [25:25] >> um, I would, uh, you know, the ones who [25:28] would help me, I would give them a [25:30] little bit of tobacco or candy. Um, and [25:33] I also brought canned food for me. Um, [25:37] and I would trade that to them for fish [25:39] and other things that they got. Uh, and [25:42] they like that. [25:43] >> How long did you stay initially? [25:45] >> The first time was just to see what it [25:47] was like before I brought my family. So [25:49] I stayed 10 days and then I came back [25:52] with my family and we stayed a year at [25:54] that time. We just stayed there the [25:55] whole year. [25:56] >> When you say your family, so your wife [25:58] and how many kids? [26:00] >> Three kids. There they are. [26:00] >> How old were the kids when you got [26:02] there? [26:02] >> Well, um my oldest daughter who there [26:04] was about 12 was uh nine and the middle [26:07] daughter was six and then the my son was [26:10] u one year three years old. So this is [26:13] around that time. Um, and so my kids [26:16] grow grew up among the Pahhan. Both my [26:19] older daughters learned to speak the [26:21] language fairly quickly. [26:22] >> Wow, that's a risky move. [26:26] >> You brought your little kids to the [26:27] jungle. [26:28] >> Yeah. So my son, [26:29] >> what is that decision like? Was that a [26:31] difficult decision? [26:32] >> Well, today it would be, but I was a [26:34] Christian and I believed in miracles and [26:36] I believe God would take care of us. And [26:38] so I went there and figured he was in [26:41] charge. He would take care of us. So my [26:43] son got menitis. [26:44] >> Uh my my two daughters got malaria. Um I [26:49] got malaria. In fact after a few years I [26:52] went to San Diego and I I came down with [26:54] malaria and in University Hospital San [26:57] Diego. They were thrilled because I was [26:59] the only person that ever seen with all [27:01] three strains of South American malaria [27:03] at the same time. Did you have a relapse [27:07] of malaria or was that because I have a [27:09] friend who got malaria in the Congo and [27:12] it came back? [27:14] >> It can come back and I've had relapses [27:16] but it's been a long time now that I [27:18] haven't had relapses. I've taken so much [27:20] medicine that supposedly it won't come [27:23] back anymore. But I can never give blood [27:25] because it's always in my blood. [27:27] >> What do they give you? Like what [27:29] medicine they giving you? Well, dera [27:30] prim primmaquin u straight quinine. Uh [27:34] when my wife almost died, uh she weighed [27:37] 115 [27:40] pounds and then she got malaria and [27:42] almost died. She got down to 76 pounds. [27:45] And uh and the doctor told me she's [27:48] going to die tonight. We don't have any [27:49] way to keep her alive. [27:50] >> Oh my god. [27:51] >> And uh they they put her on blood [27:53] transfusions because you lose a lot of [27:54] blood. It kills the blood cells. And uh [27:57] they put her on uh you know blood [27:59] transfusions and also straight quinine [28:01] which caused her to be in agony for [28:04] several days of just constant wretching [28:06] and it's just quinine is a really bad [28:08] experience. [28:10] >> But at the end of it she pulled through. [28:11] >> She pulled through. [28:12] >> Oh my god. [28:13] >> Yeah. Yeah. We all pulled through. [28:15] >> You had to be like questioning your [28:17] decisions. I mean this has to be a [28:19] triing you know very difficult time [28:23] because you're you chose to be there. [28:26] Yeah. And and so we were leaving the [28:28] village to find help because my wife and [28:31] daughter were dying of malaria at this [28:33] time where she got down to 76 pounds. [28:34] And my daughter lost a lot of weight, [28:37] too. She was just skin and bones. And uh [28:40] I'm I'm getting my boat out of there. [28:42] And I had never been out by boat. In [28:43] fact, I didn't have a boat. We were I [28:45] had no idea how to get out of there. So [28:47] this Catholic priest came up to see what [28:49] the Protestant missionaries were doing. [28:52] And I said, "Can I borrow your boat? I [28:53] got to get my family out of here." He [28:55] had this very narrow aluminum canoe with [28:57] a six horsepower Johnson and uh I got my [29:00] whole family in there and he just stayed [29:02] there in the jungle and let my family [29:04] take off in his boat and uh I didn't [29:07] know where we were but I was thinking [29:09] you know I've read all these books about [29:10] missionaries and uh now I'm having a [29:12] missionary experience but it wasn't fun. [29:16] It was really uh [29:17] >> Sounds horrific. [29:18] >> It was horrific experience and I just [29:20] didn't know what was going to happen. [29:23] So your goal was to convert these people [29:26] and how long were you there for? [29:29] >> Well, I was there um in 1980 I spent the [29:32] whole year there. In n in all the other [29:35] years from 1977 to 2013 I was there for [29:39] three to six months every year. So I was [29:42] there a lot and um got sick every time I [29:46] went. when I had typhoid fever and all [29:48] this stuff, [29:49] >> but um uh attacked by snakes and stuff [29:53] like that, but um [29:56] >> it was um it was just a mindaltering [29:59] experience. Things didn't go the way I [30:01] thought. Uh and uh the people started [30:04] questioning me, you know, they you know, [30:06] they were started asking me about why do [30:08] you believe in this Jesus you keep [30:10] telling us about what's he like? [30:12] >> And you're doing this also. You're [30:14] translating these concepts from English [30:17] to paha [30:18] >> from Greek to paha. Uh going from the [30:21] Greek New Testament because I was [30:22] translating the New Testament. So going [30:24] from Greek [30:25] >> uh to peda but I'm referencing English [30:28] and Portuguese at the same time. Oh my [30:30] goodness. [30:30] >> I'm staying in there [30:31] >> and you expect these people to [30:33] understand what you're saying. [30:34] >> Yeah. So you know if you're in the [30:36] middle of the jungle and and Jesus does [30:38] something out in a desert um how do you [30:41] describe desert? Isn't their language a [30:44] completely different language than ours? [30:46] Like in terms of like they they have no [30:48] words for color, right? [30:50] >> They have no words for direction. They [30:51] don't have a left or right, [30:52] >> right? [30:54] >> So, and this all takes time to find out [30:56] because when I went there, I thought [30:57] everybody had words for colors. [30:59] Everybody had words for numbers. [31:00] Everybody had a concept of God, [31:02] >> right? They don't have words for [31:03] numbers. That's so crazy. [31:05] >> Yeah. They don't have [31:06] >> Do they have numbers? Do they [31:08] >> No numbers. They don't count. [31:10] >> How many fish did you catch today, Mike? [31:12] A lot. [31:13] >> That's it. [31:14] >> That's it. [31:14] >> A lot or a little. [31:15] >> A lot or a little [31:17] >> or a good amount. [31:18] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, in fact, that claim was [31:22] really controversial. I've had psycho [31:24] linguists and cognitive scientists come [31:26] down with me to do experiments. [31:28] >> Didn't you get into it with Chsky about [31:30] that? [31:31] >> Well, I got into it with Chsky about [31:33] their grammar. [31:35] >> Yes. Because that's right. [31:36] >> Chsky made this claim. I've gotten other [31:38] people. There are people who find every [31:41] claim controversial. So there's some [31:42] people can't believe they don't have [31:43] numbers. Some people who don't believe [31:45] they don't have a concept of God. Other [31:47] people who believe they don't who don't [31:49] believe they don't have colors. Um but [31:52] um Chsky claimed that all languages are [31:55] built on a common property called [31:58] recursion. And recursion is this English [32:02] has it all over the place. So it's the [32:04] ability to put one unit inside another [32:08] unit of the same type. So take a noun. [32:10] If I take the noun truck and the noun [32:13] driver and I put them together, I can [32:15] form a third word, truck driver. And and [32:18] so that's recursion. I put one noun [32:20] inside another and I get a third noun. [32:21] Or with a sentence, I can say John [32:24] spoke. There's no recursion there. I can [32:26] say John said that Bill spoke and now [32:29] that's got recursion because Bill spoke [32:33] is a sentence inside John said that. M [32:35] >> and so Chsky um claimed and in my [32:39] opinion without doing a lot of homework [32:41] on this I mean he just was basing it on [32:44] languages that he happened to know uh [32:46] which aren't many um that all languages [32:49] were built on this it made sense and he [32:50] had a principles built into his theory [32:53] that required this. So when I came along [32:55] and said they don't have it and now I I [32:58] know there are other languages that [32:59] don't have it. Um, this was like saying [33:03] you're wrong. [33:05] And for me, a relative nobody to tell [33:08] the most famous linguist in history, [33:11] somebody that Chomsky was called by the [33:13] New York Times the most intent [33:14] intellectual alive. Um, to tell him that [33:17] he's wrong. [33:19] A lot of people found that very weird, [33:22] you know, unatic. Yeah. Problematic. [33:25] Problematic. But facts are facts. [33:27] >> Yeah. I mean, it should be exciting for [33:29] a linguist to look at something that [33:31] violates all the laws of other known [33:33] languages. [33:34] >> It was exciting for some linguists and [33:36] really off pissing for a lot of other [33:38] linguists. [33:39] >> Isn't that gross? That's so gross. [33:41] >> Yeah, [33:41] >> that is one of the grossest things about [33:43] intellectuals, the this gatekeeping of [33:45] information and this the appeal to [33:47] authority that they're the only person [33:49] who could possibly know. [33:50] >> Especially when you're talking about [33:52] languages. Like, how many languages are [33:54] there? There are about 8,000 separate [33:56] languages in the world. [33:58] >> Okay. How the [ __ ] could you know all [34:02] the rules to 8,000 languages? [34:04] >> We don't have data on more than about [34:06] 1,200 or so. [34:07] >> Well, isn't there also an issue with the [34:09] Aboriginal tribes of Australia? Um my [34:12] good friend Adam Greenree uh he's from [34:14] Australia and he was running a mine [34:17] there for a while and worked with a lot [34:19] of Aboriginal people and really learned [34:21] a lot about their cultures and [34:24] >> they they're called mobs like their [34:26] tribe is called they call it a mob and [34:28] there could be a mob that's just like 30 [34:31] kilometers over that way. They have no [34:33] idea what they're saying. They don't [34:34] know the language and it's not written [34:36] anywhere and there's hundreds of these. [34:38] They're all over the place. [34:39] >> Right. and the and the bit of field work [34:41] that has been done, there are some [34:42] really good Australian linguists trying [34:44] to figure out these things, but the [34:46] fieldwork that has been done has found [34:47] properties that aren't like anything [34:50] else we know about. Um, so languages can [34:53] vary so much that it's really premature [34:56] in my opinion to be writing laws that [35:00] languages are supposed to follow all [35:02] 8,000 of these languages. [35:04] >> Well, all you'd have to do is say as far [35:06] as we've observed, and then you're okay. [35:09] But as soon as you say it has to have [35:11] this and if someone says actually a [35:13] language that doesn't have this and then [35:15] there's a controversy, you're a bad guy [35:17] for pointing this out and you're you [35:19] know [35:20] >> well I had a heretic. [35:21] >> I had one of Chsky's followers who was [35:24] Brazilian write to the Brazilian Indian [35:26] Agency which is where I get my [35:28] authorization to visit these tribes and [35:31] say this Dan Everett guy he's a racist [35:34] and um [35:35] >> that's what they always say. [35:36] >> Yeah. [35:36] >> Isn't that the fun one? Yeah, they [35:38] always the moment they want to get rid [35:39] of you, you're a racist. [35:40] >> Yeah. Well, she was silly because she [35:42] said he's trying to reduce the pahas to [35:44] primates. And I said, well, in fact, I [35:46] am because we're all primates. I'm a [35:48] primate. You're a primate. But [35:50] >> but it's the thing if Chsky says that [35:52] all languages have X. Yes. [35:55] >> And I say, "Here's a language that [35:56] doesn't have X." Then either A, Chsky's [35:58] wrong, or B, these aren't humans. And so [36:01] the only person who would claim [36:02] >> claim they're not humans is a racist. [36:04] >> That's such a crazy way to put it. Yeah, [36:07] >> it's so stupid. [36:08] >> Yeah, this is typical in science. As I [36:11] got more and more into science, [36:13] >> it's it's very unfortunate. [36:14] >> It's men. [36:16] >> It's men and their egos. That's what it [36:18] is. It's and I'm sure women as well, but [36:20] it prim primarily men. [36:22] >> Well, it what you know, you don't get a [36:24] lot of money when you're a scientist. [36:26] It's not a money-making profession. You [36:27] go into the what is the biggest rate of [36:30] exchange among scientists? It's ego, [36:32] >> right? But it's just so crazy to think [36:34] that if it doesn't have this one [36:36] characteristic of language that you're [36:38] calling them primates. That's not a [36:40] value judgment. You're saying it's a [36:41] different kind of language. And this is [36:43] fascinating. [36:44] >> Exactly. That's my take. And many [36:46] anthropologists took that. Um this um [36:50] you know, so for example um they [36:53] originally said that Homo erectus had no [36:56] capability for human speech. And I [36:58] thought that was kind of a questionable [37:00] statement since you know I've read a lot [37:02] on Homoctus wrote a book about it and [37:04] they don't um [37:07] um [37:09] they all their accomplishments they had [37:11] to have pretty advanced language to [37:13] account for the fact that the ocean was [37:14] never a barrier for them and so I said [37:17] that Homo erectus had language and I [37:20] think the evidence supports that but [37:21] they don't have the kind of language [37:23] Chsky says necessarily [37:25] and um so an AR archaeologist in at the [37:28] University of Liverpool wrote me and he [37:30] says my specialty is homo erectus and I [37:32] think you're right. So we wrote a paper [37:34] together [37:35] >> and then after we wrote the paper he [37:37] discovered last year the oldest wooden [37:40] structure known in all of human history. [37:43] 500,000year-old [37:45] structure built by Homo erectus in [37:47] Zambia. And he showed that it has [37:50] interlocking pieces and parts that [37:54] nobody ever expected Homo erectus to be [37:56] able to do. And their brains weren't [37:57] that much smaller than ours. You know, [37:59] the average size of a modern human's [38:02] brain is about 1,200 cc's for men and [38:06] about 950 to,00 cc's for women. And [38:10] since we know that men aren't more [38:12] intelligent than women, the size of the [38:13] brain can't be what's determining that. [38:16] Uh, Homoctus had brains of 950 to a,000 [38:19] cc's, uh, you know, cubic centimeters. [38:22] You measure that by taking the skull and [38:24] filling it full of sand and seeing how [38:26] much sand fits in there. Um, and so they [38:30] were able to make these complex [38:32] structures and they were able to make [38:33] boats and they were able to do all these [38:35] things. Uh, yeah, that's that's what [38:37] Larry Barham from the University of [38:39] Liverpool discovered uh, this structure. [38:42] You see the cross piece and he recently [38:44] gave a talk to uh, an association, a [38:47] world association of archaeologists uh, [38:50] to get their judgment on what this could [38:51] be and not archaeologists but um, [38:53] architects uh, to get their professional [38:56] judgment. They were really impressed by [38:58] this. They said that's actually a pretty [38:59] advanced structure for building um you [39:02] know a walkway or a house or [39:04] >> we actually discussed this yesterday. I [39:07] had a guy on named Michael Button. He's [39:09] got a fantastic YouTube channel. It's [39:10] all about like sort of the mysteries of [39:12] human history. And um we we talked about [39:15] the seafaring aspect and how much [39:17] evidence there is that these people were [39:19] seafaring as much as a million years [39:21] ago. [39:21] >> Yeah. Yeah. And and in my book, How [39:24] Language Began, I have uh [39:25] >> they had to be communicated. [39:26] >> Yeah. You can't There's an archaeologist [39:29] in Australia, uh Bedner is his name, and [39:33] he um showed by he did experiments and [39:37] and they're not exact because you can't [39:40] find humans today that don't have any [39:41] language, normal humans. Um but he got [39:44] humans from different languages who [39:46] didn't couldn't communicate with each [39:47] other that well to see if they could [39:49] build a boat. And and then another [39:51] linguist wrote a paper based on some of [39:53] this called how much language does it [39:55] take to build a boat? And it turns out [39:57] you've got to have language to build a [39:59] boat. And so if they were building these [40:01] boats that could carry water and could [40:03] carry as many as 20 people because you [40:05] got to have enough to if you find a [40:07] colony of Homo erectus on an island that [40:10] was always an island. It was never [40:11] connected by land. Um there had to be [40:15] more than one person that washed up [40:17] there on some vegetation. There has to [40:19] have been a community. [40:20] >> Yeah, Michael brought up that the what [40:23] was it? The what organization that did [40:26] it? Was it NASA? NASA did a study [40:28] because they were trying to figure out [40:29] how many people you need to colonize [40:32] another planet. And um they they came up [40:35] with the number 500. You need a minimum [40:37] of 500 to begin a colony, [40:40] >> right? [40:40] >> In order to have genetic diversity, make [40:42] sure you're not having sex with your [40:43] cousin, that that kind of jazz. [40:45] >> Yeah. So you can't just send a couple [40:48] over there, Adam and Eve, right? [40:49] >> And expect this to happen. [40:51] >> Yeah. How did you feel about that story [40:52] when you first heard it? Adam and Eve. [40:54] >> Yeah. When you when you were converting, [40:56] you're saying you do an acid. [40:58] >> I mean, I was one of these guys who I [41:00] believe the Bible cover to cover and [41:01] even the covers. [41:02] >> Uh so [41:03] >> we'll get to that in a minute. So, but [41:05] go back to how this is all going down [41:08] >> with uh the the controversy. [41:10] >> Yes. So I started getting hate mail and [41:12] then um uh the the article came out when [41:17] I first proposed this in the major [41:19] journal of anthropology, current [41:21] anthropology. [41:23] I was in Germany at the time at the Mox [41:25] Blanc Institute for Evolutionary [41:27] Anthropology and right down the hall [41:30] from me was Fonte Po who just won the [41:32] Nobel Prize for decoding the genome of [41:34] Neanderthalss. [41:36] and there was a reporter, a German [41:38] reporter from Derpiegel to talk to him [41:42] and she found out about my article. So [41:43] she walked down the hall after she [41:45] interviewed him and interviewed me and [41:46] this came out and it started to get [41:47] picked up in the press in a lot of [41:50] places and so the New Yorker did a big [41:53] profile. But then the reaction came and [41:56] it wasn't what I expected. I expected [41:58] that if you make a proposal that other [42:01] scientists, if they're skeptical, which [42:02] they have every right to be, are going [42:04] to propose experiments to test what [42:06] you're saying. And they're going to say, [42:08] "Well, if they don't have recursion, you [42:09] should find this and you should not find [42:11] that and you should get this and this [42:12] and this." And I tried to anticipate [42:15] that, but that's the kind of objection I [42:17] expected. But instead, they said, "I'm a [42:19] liar. I'm trying to get publicity." You [42:22] know, I had a New York Times reporter. [42:24] She called me and she said, "Are do you [42:26] try to get publicity?" I said, "Did I [42:28] ask you to call me?" I said, "I'm, you [42:30] know, you called me." I said, "You know, [42:32] I it's an interesting story. If people [42:34] want to talk to me, I'm here to talk to [42:35] them, but I'm not." I said, 'If I wrote [42:37] you at the New York Times and said, "I'm [42:39] an interesting person. Interview me." [42:40] Would you would that make any [42:42] difference? [42:42] >> That's not They're not mutually [42:43] exclusive. Like, you could be trying to [42:45] get attention and publicity because [42:47] you've discovered something that's very [42:49] important. The idea that you're just [42:51] trying to get attention. Are you trying [42:52] to get attention? [42:53] >> What? What are you talking about? Yeah. [42:56] Did that's such a it's so weird that the [43:00] intellectuals the the people who are [43:03] literally professional thinkers would [43:05] fall into these like common human traps [43:08] of ego. [43:09] >> Yeah. Well, it was a it was a mind uh [43:13] blowing u mind um expanding experience [43:16] for me to see that intellectuals that I [43:19] otherwise admired as deep thinkers about [43:22] their subject would not think otherwise [43:25] and you know I mean intellectuals it [43:28] >> did they ever engage you on the actual [43:30] information? Yeah, I had I had um people [43:34] from MIT, Department of Brain and [43:36] Cognitive Sciences, from Stanford [43:38] Department of Psychology, uh from [43:40] Columbia University came down at [43:42] separate times to run experiments, and [43:44] they were well-designed experiments to [43:46] test what I said. And um they all came [43:49] away saying, you know, it looks like [43:51] Dan's right. So, where's the reaction [43:55] then? And what is the what do they say [43:59] about that? like the people that are [44:00] negative about this and the people that [44:01] are calling you a racist and all this [44:04] saying you're trying to get attention. [44:05] What do what are they saying about these [44:07] results? [44:08] >> They don't refer to them directly, but [44:11] if asked they often say that these [44:13] people don't like Chsky. [44:16] >> U so [44:17] >> all of them? [44:18] >> Yeah. [44:18] >> All of those individual scientists that [44:20] are running these studies for you don't [44:21] like Chsky and that's why they have [44:23] these skewed results. [44:24] >> That is one of the many objections that [44:26] people raise but by and large they [44:28] ignore it. Well, they ignore it. Yeah. [44:30] So, they ignore the studies. [44:32] >> Yeah. I had Chsky write me some really [44:34] nasty emails. [44:36] >> You got them? Do you got them still? [44:37] >> I have one. Yeah, I do have one. And I I [44:39] I [44:41] asked him um I said, "Why don't we [44:42] debate at the Linguistic Society of [44:44] America?" I said, "You think I'm an [44:46] idiot?" So, here's your chance. You can [44:48] show that I'm an idiot. Just we'll [44:49] debate and you'll make a fool of me in [44:51] five minutes. [44:52] >> He's saying he thinks you're an idiot [44:54] when you're explaining a language that [44:55] he doesn't know. [44:56] >> I'm an idiot or I'm a liar. Oh my god. [45:00] >> He gave an interview to a Brazilian [45:01] newspaper who and he said Dan used to be [45:04] a fairly good linguist, but um he is a [45:07] charlatan. He's just a 100% charlatan. [45:10] And he was interviewed on a Spanish [45:12] station and they said, "What do you [45:13] think of the contributions of Dan Ever?" [45:15] And he said, "They're nothing, nothing, [45:17] nothing." And oh my god, [45:19] >> he's really popular, you know. So [45:21] >> I used to really admire him. [45:23] >> Yeah. [45:23] >> I used to really admire him. Then I [45:24] found out I was close homies with [45:26] Jeffrey Epstein. that kind of [45:28] >> threw a lot of water on that like what? [45:30] >> Yeah. [45:30] >> Um but then it was the stance during the [45:32] vaccines when he was like people that [45:34] weren't vaccinated should be round up [45:35] and put into camps. So he had some crazy [45:37] positions. [45:38] >> Yeah. on the unvaccinated people and [45:40] very just misinformed, just completely [45:44] misinformed about [45:47] whether it was natural immunity or there [45:49] was other medications that were treat [45:51] that you could use to treat [45:53] >> COVID 19 or even the the efficacy of the [45:56] vaccine. It was crazy. But that was just [45:59] one thing about him. There's just like [46:01] his earlier debates like he's got these [46:03] fantastic debates. I think it's him and [46:06] William F. Buckley. [46:07] >> Yeah. Have you ever seen those? I have. [46:08] He's so good in those. He's so brilliant [46:11] in those. It was a young Chsky and it [46:15] like his intellect and his reason. It [46:18] was like a breath of fresh air. It was [46:20] like super wellinformed and every time [46:23] Buckley tried to catch him on something, [46:25] he juded him. It was amazing. [46:27] >> Yeah. Well, the first two books of Chsky [46:29] I read when I started stud, you know, [46:32] doing graduate work in linguistics. [46:33] >> I read the medium one. [46:35] >> Uh what is it? Oh. Um, [46:38] a manufacturer of consent. [46:40] >> That's right. [46:40] >> Yeah. But he had [46:42] >> the first book of his I read it was in [46:44] linguistics as aspects of the theory of [46:46] syntax. And if you're a linguist and [46:48] you're studying linguistics, that's just [46:50] genius. It is just brilliant. And then [46:53] the next book which he published the [46:54] same year was American Power and the New [46:58] Mandarins which was about Vietnam. And [47:00] that was also brilliant. And you know [47:02] for one person to publish two books like [47:05] that in one year. [47:06] >> Wow. [47:07] >> I mean that's just first order genius. [47:09] So I admired him. [47:10] >> What goes wrong with a guy like that [47:12] though? If a guy can be that smart, how [47:14] could he not be curious? How could he [47:17] not like when you say something that [47:19] flies in the face of everything that [47:21] he's taught? How could he not be curious [47:24] and want to talk to you? And if you're [47:26] right, why would he not want to like do [47:28] something with you? Like if I found [47:30] someone like you and I was I mean I [47:32] would have hoped that I would be the [47:33] same way as I am now. And I had an [47:35] opportunity I would say we should do a [47:37] podcast together. We could explain this. [47:39] This is crazy. [47:40] >> Right. I invited him to the paha. He was [47:42] coming to Brazil. And I said hey why [47:44] don't you come with me to the paha and [47:46] I'll ask them any question you want me [47:47] to ask them. We can talk about it there. [47:49] And he said I don't do that kind of [47:51] thing. I don't go I don't do field work. [47:53] Uh so he didn't come. [47:54] >> Good move. You don't want typo fever and [47:56] [ __ ] malaria bit by snakes st by [47:59] jaguars. True. You know, [48:00] >> see, he's smart. [48:02] >> It's just very disappointing when people [48:04] are really brilliant. He's a brilliant [48:06] guy and essentially I mean, especially [48:09] rather was really brilliant when he was [48:11] young. It's just so sad when you see [48:14] someone like that just behaving with ego [48:17] because he was the the expert. He was [48:19] the foremost linguist on planet Earth. [48:21] when the New York Times is saying things [48:23] like you're the most important [48:24] intellectual alive and you have people [48:27] hanging off every word as though it [48:29] comes from, you know, the Oracle of [48:31] Apollo. Yeah. Um [48:33] >> I I assume that it affects your ego to [48:36] some degree. [48:36] >> 100%. Most people, especially back then [48:39] when there's no internet to check you, [48:41] you know, you can get a really distorted [48:43] perception of how you stand. Also, [48:46] everyone's kissing your ass. you're [48:48] surrounded by other people that are [48:50] trying to climb the same ladder you're [48:51] on. You're in a very lofty position of [48:53] authority and power. [48:55] >> You know, he wrote letters of [48:57] recommendation for me for my first job [48:59] in the US. [49:00] >> Really? [49:00] >> And he wrote a letter of recommendation [49:01] when I came up for promotion to tenure [49:03] at the University of Pittsburgh. [49:05] >> Why would you do that if you're an [49:06] idiot? [49:07] >> But I hadn't been an I wasn't yet an [49:08] idiot. [49:10] >> I became an idiot. [49:12] >> You became an idiot when you disagreed [49:13] with him. Yeah. Meanwhile, haha, you're [49:15] right. That's what's funny. In the end, [49:18] you're right. [49:19] >> Yeah. Well, he um you know, I've I've [49:22] had so many exchanges in journals and [49:25] magazines and things with his followers [49:27] over the years and with him um that um [49:31] you know, I go give a talk somewhere and [49:33] people say, you know, I hope you're [49:34] ready because there's a lot of skeptic a [49:36] lot of skeptics in this audience. And I [49:38] say, yeah, I don't think they're going [49:39] to ask me any new questions. I've done [49:41] this so much now that they're going to [49:42] ask me. [49:44] I said, I'll be surprised if anybody [49:46] asks me a question that I haven't heard [49:48] from Chsky. [49:50] >> And when you have these conversations [49:52] with Chsky and you lay out how the peda [49:56] use their language and what they and how [49:58] it works, what was his reaction to that [50:00] that you're just incorrect? [50:02] >> Well, the first time I talked to him [50:03] about it, he had not made this claim [50:05] about recursion. This was in 1984. [50:08] >> Oh. I was a visitor at MIT linguistics [50:11] and my office was next to his and so I [50:14] talked to him several times that year [50:16] and I said um I don't think their [50:20] language has this property and he said [50:23] you know he was drinking coffee and [50:25] looking at the board he had a blackboard [50:26] right by his desk and he said hm wonder [50:28] what the consequences of that are and [50:30] then one of his PhD students told me oh [50:32] you really got known thinking what is [50:34] this uh he he found that very intriguing [50:36] but then when he came out with the [50:38] proclamation that all languages had to [50:40] have it. Then I became an idiot. [50:41] >> Oh god, that's so disappointing. [50:47] >> [ __ ] people. [50:48] >> Yeah, [50:48] >> [ __ ] people. Even the brightest [50:51] minds, they're just Ego is such a [50:54] [ __ ] [50:55] >> Yeah. Well, it's it's really [50:57] disappointing because, you know, he was [50:58] like my idol for the first part of my [51:00] linguistic career [51:01] >> and I wasn't [51:03] >> Did you try to have a conversation with [51:04] him after he denounced you? Did you try [51:06] to like oneon-one get together with him? [51:09] >> Well, we exchanged emails. So, for [51:11] example, in in his face, like right in [51:13] front of him. Did you try to do that? [51:15] >> Uh, he never had I had always told him [51:17] when I was going through Cambridge that [51:20] I was coming and maybe he and I could [51:22] talk and he always made time and we [51:24] talked, you know, I I'd be living [51:26] somewhere else and I'd come to MIT and [51:27] he'd talk to me. And my first PhD [51:29] student uh is a full professor at MIT [51:32] and he started off in linguistics. uh [51:34] he's in co he's in brain and cognitive [51:36] sciences now but so I had a good [51:38] relationship with Chsky but then [51:39] suddenly he never had time to meet with [51:41] me [51:42] >> so after his proclamation [51:43] >> right [51:44] >> okay [51:45] >> he had no time to meet with me his wife [51:47] died and I wrote him a letter saying I'm [51:49] so sorry that Carol died this is really [51:51] terrible I know you guys have been [51:52] together for so long and he wrote back [51:55] and said thank you so much that means a [51:57] great deal to me and then I saw this [51:59] article in a S Paulo paper where he [52:00] called me a charlatan so I wrote him [52:02] right back and I did you call me a [52:04] charlatan? And he said, "Yeah, you are a [52:07] charlatan." I said, "You should be [52:08] ashamed of yourself." He said, "No, you [52:10] should be ashamed of yourself for saying [52:11] things, you know, that can't be right." [52:13] >> Oh, [52:14] >> so that was the last exchange we had. [52:16] >> Silly gnome. You should have had that in [52:18] front of them. I mean, just I think [52:21] people say things in emails that I think [52:24] it's a terrible way to communicate. [52:25] >> I agree completely. [52:27] >> You know, that's [52:28] >> especially with insults. It's just like [52:30] it's such a [52:31] >> waiting and then you're waiting on the [52:32] other person's insult in return like [52:34] >> God stop it. Are you [ __ ] 12 years [52:37] old? [52:37] >> Yeah. [52:38] >> Stop. [52:39] >> So the the author Tom Wolf um the last [52:42] book he wrote was called Kingdom of [52:44] Speech. And he talked about two [52:47] controversies. Darwin versus Alfred [52:49] Russell Wallace and me versus Chsky. [52:52] >> Oh wow. And so he has a very he has some [52:56] bizarre absolutely wrong ideas about [52:58] where language came from. He's not a [53:00] linguist, but he did cover that [53:02] controversy extremely well. And um you [53:05] know, Tom used to call me every week [53:07] when he was writing the book. I didn't [53:08] even know what it was about to ask to [53:10] get the details right, but he was just [53:13] shocked how this happened. [53:15] >> Yeah. Again, it's disappointing, but [53:18] even the most brilliant humans are just [53:20] human, [53:21] >> right? Right. And they're subject to all [53:23] the flaws and all the traps that the [53:25] human mind could fall into. [53:27] >> Yeah. I've I've often said uh after long [53:30] experience that intelligence is no [53:32] antidote for stupidity, [53:34] >> right? [53:34] >> You can be both. [53:36] >> Oh, 100%. Absolutely. Especially when [53:38] ego is involved. [53:39] >> Yeah. [53:40] >> So, how many people how many of the pira [53:43] did you convert? [53:45] >> NOBODY [53:48] >> in in decades. They weren't interested. [53:50] They were they were so totally because [53:53] my claims did not meet their standard of [53:55] evidence. They have a high standard of [53:57] evidence and I didn't meet that [53:59] standard. [54:00] >> This episode is brought to you by Blue [54:02] Chew. Man, let's talk about Blue Chew. [54:04] They're already the number one brand for [54:06] better sex, but what they're doing with [54:08] Blue Chew Gold is completely next level. [54:11] Gold is a 4in-one formula designed to [54:14] make your bedroom noisy again. [54:17] Obviously, it gets you hard like you're [54:19] back in your 20s, and everything is [54:22] handled 100% online. But Gold boosts [54:25] your arousal, getting you ready for sex [54:28] physically and mentally. Plus, it [54:30] dissolves under your tongue for faster [54:32] absorption, so you get that spontaneous [54:35] energy back. Look at the stats. Gold is [54:39] three times stronger, five times faster, [54:40] and eight times longerlasting than old [54:43] school methods. Blue Chew Gold is the [54:46] real deal. Right now, buy two months of [54:49] Blue Chew Gold and get the third free [54:52] with my code Rogan. You will also [54:54] receive free overnight shipping. Head [54:56] over to bluechw.com for details and [54:59] important safety information. Check it [55:01] out. This ad and the products being [55:04] advertised are intended for a United [55:06] States audience. [55:08] >> But don't they have like mystical [55:10] creatures and stuff that they believe [55:12] live in the forest? [55:13] >> They do. And when I first got there as a [55:16] Christian, I called these things spirits [55:20] because that's all I knew how to care [55:21] about. [55:22] >> How do they describe them? [55:23] >> They describe them as distinct beings. [55:26] They don't say they're spiritual or [55:27] anything like that, but they you see [55:29] something like you see maybe there's [55:32] another Indian hunting, you know, from a [55:34] different tribe hunting in your jungle [55:35] because there are some that are close [55:37] enough to be hunting in the same area. [55:39] You see them, but you don't see them. [55:41] Well, they go behind a tree or [55:42] something. [55:44] So, you say, "Oh, that's one of these [55:45] things. I just saw one of these things." [55:48] Um, [55:50] they don't put it to the test [55:51] necessarily, but they [55:53] >> these things. [55:54] >> So, they have three major types of [55:56] entities besides humans. Uh, and they [55:59] have different types of humans. I'm one [56:01] type and they're another type. Um, and [56:04] so they have things. [56:05] >> How do they make the distinction? Is it [56:07] the appearance [56:08] >> for for humans? Yes, it's it's [56:10] appearance. Uh well, actually for the [56:11] other entities, it's appearance, too. [56:13] So, for me, I'm white. And white means [56:17] you don't have blood. So, they've asked [56:19] me, they said, "So, you do you have [56:21] blood?" And they they asked me one time [56:24] after I've been there for years, they [56:25] said, "Do Americans die?" And I said, [56:27] "Yeah, we die." But you're really old [56:30] and you haven't died yet, you know. And [56:32] and so I cut my [56:33] >> How old were you at the time? [56:35] >> Probably 45. [56:37] >> And they thought you were a goner. [56:38] >> Yeah. because we aged differently. I was [56:40] already had gray hair, you know, not all [56:42] over, [56:42] >> right? They look a lot different when [56:44] they're 45. [56:45] >> Yeah. Yeah. They're all still 100% black [56:47] hair and [56:47] >> Oh, they thought you were a goner with [56:49] the white hair. [56:50] >> So, uh they have an expression ma almost [56:54] about to fall to the ground. And that's [56:56] the way they described me. Wow. [56:58] >> But um so Americans are one way, [57:00] Brazilians are another way. But then [57:02] there are these things. Some of them are [57:03] called fast mouths. And so they they [57:06] talk in a high-pitched voice and at [57:09] night you hear somebody, you know, a [57:11] creature talking in a high falsetto [57:13] voice into the village. And I say, [57:15] "What's that?" They said, "Oh, that's a [57:16] fastmouth." They they I said, "But I I'm [57:20] seeing it and it looks like a pita." Oh, [57:21] yeah. They look just like us, but [57:22] they're not. They're not us. And um so [57:26] this is where we come to the border of [57:28] fact and fiction. And we draw fairly we [57:31] try to draw a fairly rigid line between [57:34] fact and fiction in our society and in [57:37] most European societies. But to them um [57:41] they don't have to um have the full [57:44] range of experience with this um to [57:47] describe it. And so a fastmouth is just [57:50] a fastmouth and they talk in a and you [57:52] know who they are because they talk in a [57:53] high falsetto voice and they go naked. [57:56] Whereas pahas if often go naked but if [57:58] they have clothes they'll wear them and [58:00] the fast mouths will never wear clothes. [58:02] Um and the fast mouths are also sexually [58:05] promiscuous. So I had a reporter with me [58:08] in the jungle from Guo magazine in [58:10] Germany and he said can I see one of [58:12] these fast mouths? And I told I told one [58:15] guy I said he wants to see a fastmouth. [58:17] And he said I'll go get one. and he [58:19] walks off into the jungle and then he [58:20] the same guy comes back in naked um [58:24] talking in this falset subtto voice and [58:26] starts trying to hump the reporter [58:31] and the reporter says oh I'm feeling [58:33] very uncomfortable I don't like I said [58:34] you asked for it I mean you know I mean [58:36] that's the way they are and so I finally [58:38] told the guy I said you know he doesn't [58:39] he doesn't want this he doesn't want to [58:41] see the fast mouth anymore so he talks [58:43] me in a high falsetto and he walks off [58:44] and he comes back on with his clothes on [58:46] and I said, "Uh, did you see the fast [58:50] mouth?" He said, "Was there a fast mouth [58:52] here?" I was gone. You know [58:53] >> what? [58:54] >> But it's the same guy. [58:56] >> What did you take of that? Like what did [59:00] you think that they were playing a prank [59:02] on you? Did you think that this is like [59:04] some sort of a psychotic state that they [59:06] fall into? It is a liinal area between [59:11] being say theater and being reality. And [59:16] I don't know if they feel possessed. I [59:18] don't think they have a concept of [59:19] possession. I've I've asked them and [59:21] I've investigated this and I've never [59:23] seen that. But they definitely believe [59:26] that they're gone and this other [59:28] creature is there in their place. [59:31] >> Do they have memory of when they become [59:33] a fastmouth? [59:34] >> They deny it. I've tried to get them to [59:36] talk about it. I don't know. I wasn't [59:38] here. [59:38] >> Everyone denies it. [59:40] >> Everybody denies it. [59:41] >> Wow. Do you think that being a fastmouth [59:44] is like almost like a license to go and [59:47] do stuff you're not supposed to do? Go [59:49] [ __ ] everybody and [59:50] >> Yeah. [59:51] >> You think that's what it is? [59:52] >> Yeah. Because they change they also [59:53] change names very frequently. So if I go [59:56] back there now, all my old friends will [59:58] have different names and anything done [60:00] under the old name is, you know, you'll [60:02] say, "You remember when you did this?" [60:04] Well, I didn't do that. That was the guy [60:06] with this name. So they don't even [60:08] claim. So the concept of constancy of [60:11] identity throughout time [60:14] >> they deny this. [60:15] >> So when do they choose to make a new [60:17] name or do do they get a new name [60:19] assigned to them? [60:20] >> They can um children often get new names [60:24] for different phases of life. But adults [60:27] if you if you're out in the jungle and [60:28] you think you saw something and you [60:30] can't explain it, you might take a new [60:31] name. [60:35] >> So [60:36] >> not a bad idea, right? This is a way of [60:38] coping with things. [60:39] >> Yeah. I mean, it kind of makes sense. If [60:41] something really traumatic happens to [60:43] you and you want to like reclaim your [60:45] life, you change your name, start over [60:47] from scratch, [60:47] >> right? And and some of us do it in [60:49] American culture, but it's a lot harder [60:52] legal process to change your name. [60:53] >> How often do they get killed by jaguars? [60:56] >> U nobody's ever been killed in my almost [60:58] 50 years coming and going, but they've [61:01] many of them have been attacked. [61:02] >> Really? [61:03] >> Yeah. Like one guy was coming back and [61:06] um from getting Braz Bra Brazil nuts and [61:08] so he had a big basket and so his head's [61:11] down a bit with the tump line and the [61:13] basket probably weighs, you know, 60 [61:15] lbs. Um and suddenly a jaguar jumps out [61:19] of the tree right on his back, but it [61:21] got the basket and not him and it pulled [61:23] the basket off his head and um he shot [61:26] it with an arrow. [61:28] >> Oh my god. But they tell me that when [61:30] you shoot a jaguar with an arrow, the [61:32] jaguar forgets about you and keeps [61:33] trying to get the arrow out. Um, and by [61:36] that time you've got three or four more [61:37] arrows in it. [61:40] >> So these guys are deadly accurate with [61:42] with bows and arrows. [61:43] >> So if they did that and like maybe they [61:47] got attacked, would they change their [61:48] name after that? [61:49] >> They could. And I So I don't completely [61:51] have it down to a formula. Oh, [61:53] >> okay. So it's not it's not like when [61:55] they're uncomfortable. Sometimes it's [61:57] just like it's time. Tom that Bob [61:58] becomes [61:59] >> it's a subjective reaction to objective [62:01] experience that causes them to do this [62:03] >> and they do they announce it to the [62:05] village [62:06] >> um they announce it to their like their [62:08] spouse or their kids and then the word [62:10] spreads and so I'll come back in I came [62:13] back in after six months and my buddy my [62:15] main language teacher um his his name [62:19] was when I left it was [62:22] which means blood eater and when I got [62:25] back I said you know and the nickname is [62:27] co Hey co, you know, I asked him, "How [62:29] you doing?" And nobody responds. He [62:30] didn't turn and look at me or anything. [62:32] And I called him again and again. He [62:33] said, "You talking to me?" I said, [62:35] "Yeah." He said, "That's not my name." [62:37] And uh so I had to learn his new name [62:38] was Kapali. Uh you know, which u and he [62:42] was serious about it. He wouldn't [62:44] respond anymore to that old name. [62:46] >> Wow. [62:47] >> How odd. The first time that happened, [62:49] were you like, "Oh my god, these people [62:51] are [ __ ] crazy." [62:52] >> No, I thought I'm pretty stupid. I did [62:54] can't even remember their names. [62:55] >> Wow. That was my first reaction. [62:57] >> How how quickly did the this happen from [62:59] you first like encountering these [63:01] people? [63:02] >> Well, I um I would be gone for three or [63:05] four months at a time and then come back [63:07] cuz I was I was doing linguistic. [63:10] >> Oh, so you never experienced it like as [63:12] it was happening. You only [63:14] >> one time there was you you really need [63:16] to spend at least a full year there so [63:18] you can see all the seasons and all the [63:20] changes. Then I saw some of the stuff [63:22] but many of the name changes happened [63:24] when I was out of the village. Some of [63:25] them happened when I was in the village, [63:27] but my best friends, their name changes [63:29] seemed to happen when I was out of the [63:31] village. And they were very serious [63:33] about enforcing those new name changes. [63:38] So if you ask them to tell stories about [63:41] their childhood, you get these very [63:42] vague stories and they'll say, you know, [63:45] but I'm talking about this person, you [63:47] know, [63:48] >> or they'll tell me, you know, they [63:49] changed my name twice, you know, and so [63:52] they name me and they so a guy comes up [63:54] to me and he says that name is rotten, [63:57] which is the same word you use for [63:59] spoiled food. You know, your name is [64:01] spoiled. Um, so I'm going to give you [64:04] this name. And then I got then one time [64:06] I was in there and was staying with this [64:08] guy. He's just wearing a loin cloth and [64:10] uh the other pet fearing because he's [64:12] this fierce guy and uh he says you're [64:16] really old. I you know they always tell [64:18] me that. He said you're really old. And [64:20] I said I'm not that old. He said yeah [64:22] you are. My dad's dead and you're about [64:24] the same age as he was. You know they [64:25] don't know what the age is. Um so he [64:27] said I'm going to give you my dad's name [64:29] and I which is just the name of his dad. [64:32] So that's been my name ever since. I've [64:34] had that name now for about 15 years. [64:36] >> And when you go back, what happens if [64:38] they want to switch it up again? You [64:40] have to learn a new name. [64:41] >> Yeah. Yeah. [64:42] >> It could easily happen, right? [64:43] >> Yeah, it could easily happen. It just [64:44] depends on which village you go to and [64:46] which person you're talking to. [64:47] >> How what was what is the population of [64:49] these people? [64:50] >> When I first got there, it was under [64:51] 200. Uh, and now it's around 700 to 800. [64:55] Uh, they've grown because they've had [64:57] more medical assistance. I gave them [64:59] medical assistance, my wife and I, for, [65:01] you know, 20 years. And so your goal was [65:05] to convert them to Christianity, right? [65:08] And when it's so no one's buying it. So [65:12] what are you doing? [65:13] >> What is what do your days consist of [65:15] while you're there? [65:15] >> Well, my days consist of um linguistic [65:18] analysis and uh translation effort. So [65:22] I'll work with somebody and so I so I [65:24] work with this guy for example and uh we [65:27] went through the story of Jesus. I had [65:29] translated a large part of the Gospel of [65:31] Luke and I tell him this story and then [65:33] I showed film strips, you know, made by, [65:37] you know, where Jesus looks like an [65:38] American and has a beard and all this [65:40] stuff and I and I explained it. They [65:43] don't make a difference between drawings [65:45] and photographs. So they figured, well, [65:47] this must be Jesus. He saw Jesus. So [65:49] that night after I had told him all this [65:51] and we had seen the film strips, uh, his [65:54] village was across the river. I lived in [65:56] one village and across the river was [65:57] another village and they went across the [65:59] river and all night long I heard [66:01] screaming and yelling and people running [66:03] around and women laughing and then women [66:05] screaming and the next morning he comes [66:08] back to work with me and I said so what [66:09] was going on all night he said oh Jesus [66:12] came to our village [66:14] I said what he said yeah he came to our [66:16] village you know and he had a penis [66:17] three feet long they don't have words [66:20] for feet so he just I'm just going by [66:22] his hand thing he said and he was trying [66:23] to stick it in all the women And so uh [66:26] you know the women don't want to know [66:27] anymore about Jesus. [66:29] >> What [66:30] this is their way of rejecting it. Um so [66:34] I never expected that when I in all my [66:36] Bible training and things [66:38] >> did they say so they won't wouldn't [66:40] admit if one of them became like they [66:43] become a fast talker if they just became [66:45] Jesus. [66:46] >> Right. [66:46] >> But that could have been what happened. [66:48] One guy [66:48] >> I'm sure that's what happened. [66:49] >> So one guy just decided I'm Jesus. [66:51] >> Yeah. [66:52] >> But everybody took him. You're Jesus. [66:54] Yeah. [66:55] >> And this is what Jesus is trying to do. [66:57] >> Oh boy. [66:58] >> But they they would ask questions like, [67:00] um, you know, hey Dan, uh, what does [67:02] Jesus look like? Is he brown like us or [67:04] is he white like you? And I say, well, [67:06] you know, some people say he was brown [67:07] like you and some people say he was [67:09] white like me. And they said, yeah, [67:10] yeah, but you've seen him. What did he [67:11] look like? And I said, well, I never saw [67:14] him. Well, your dad saw him. No, my dad [67:17] never saw him. He lived a long time ago. [67:18] I don't know anyone who's ever seen [67:19] Jesus. And they said, you don't know [67:21] anyone who's ever seen him. and you're [67:22] just talking about him the whole time, [67:24] telling us about him. They said, "We [67:26] don't want to hear about this anymore." [67:29] And and that was like, [67:31] >> but you at the time were a believer. [67:32] You're a true believer. [67:34] >> Yeah. [67:35] >> So, when did that start to slip away? [67:38] >> It started to slip away uh from two [67:41] sides. One, I was spending a lot of my [67:43] time in the intellectual world and [67:45] trying to do serious linguistic science. [67:48] And it slipped away mainly, however, by [67:51] constant interaction with the pita [67:53] because as I gotten to know these people [67:54] over the years, uh these are really [67:57] smart people. They're very intelligent [67:59] people. They they had me figured out [68:02] before I had them figured out. And they [68:03] can predict my behavior better than I [68:05] can predict theirs even today. And so, [68:09] um, they would come to me and they would [68:10] say this, you know, they say, "Dan, you [68:11] keep telling us about Jesus." Uh, but it [68:14] seems that only Americans believe in [68:16] Jesus because we don't know any [68:17] Brazilians that we've ever met that [68:19] believe in Jesus. And so this seems like [68:21] an American thing, but we're not [68:22] Americans. And then they would say, you [68:25] know, where did you get your evidence? [68:26] And I began to think, you know, these [68:28] are good questions. I can't just throw [68:30] these questions off. What is my [68:31] evidence? You know, I I went to Bible [68:33] school. I've been surrounded by [68:34] Christians. I've been I've surrounded [68:36] myself by people who believe. And this [68:38] is what happens in linguistic theory or [68:40] other scientific theories. you surround [68:42] yourself with a community that believes [68:44] the same thing. And pretty soon it's [68:46] hard for you to consider alternatives. [68:50] >> And and so I started considering the [68:51] alternatives and I realized, you know, [68:54] because I was I was an atheist back when [68:56] I, you know, met my uh first wife in [68:59] front of a Jimmyi Hendricks concert. I [69:00] was an atheist and then I became a [69:02] Christian and then I thought, you know, [69:04] maybe I was right to begin with. Um, and [69:09] so eventually I told them I said, "You [69:10] know, I don't believe this stuff anymore [69:12] either." And they started laughing. All [69:13] the guys started laughing. I said, "Why [69:14] are you?" They said, "Oh, now you're [69:16] like us, you know." [69:18] >> But um, but then they they told me one [69:20] time, they said, you know, from what we [69:22] understand, Christians don't drink and [69:24] they don't sleep with other women and, [69:26] you know, we like to do those things, [69:30] so we're not interested. [69:33] What was convincing for you though? If [69:35] you're a true believer, you think your [69:37] path is the right way. When you're [69:39] hanging out with these people, what is [69:40] what is making you question it? [69:42] >> Well, several things. Uh, one of the [69:44] most important things was that having [69:47] spent so many years as a Christian and [69:48] knowing Christians both in the US and [69:51] missionaries who are the cream of the [69:52] crop supposedly. Um, I didn't know [69:55] anyone in the Christian faith who was as [69:57] well adjusted, who could cope with life [69:59] as well, who was as satisfied and [70:01] content with their lives as the peda. [70:03] They were like the ultimate Zen masters [70:06] and the ultimate, you know, if you if [70:08] you thought what is Jesus supposed to do [70:10] for your life, they already had it. Uh, [70:12] and I didn't know many Christians who [70:14] did. So, first it was quality of the [70:16] spiritual life. They seem to me to have [70:17] the highest quality of spiritual life. [70:19] So, one MIT guy who came down, an MIT [70:22] PhD student said, "These look like the [70:25] happiest people in the world." And I [70:26] said, "Well, what kind of statement is [70:28] that? How would you measure who's [70:30] happiest?" He said, "Well, I would spend [70:32] time I would see how long they smile and [70:35] laugh every day and compare it to others [70:37] and how much time they spend laughing [70:39] and smiling and I'll guarantee you I've [70:41] he seen a pita here who's not smiling or [70:44] laughing at frequently." [70:46] >> Yeah. [70:47] So it was that quality of character and [70:50] it was also just the fact that I began [70:52] to realize that the scientific [70:54] principles that I've been learning and [70:56] that I'm applying in linguistics [70:58] almost have to be suspended to apply [71:01] them to the faith. Um because you know [71:05] for example I've heard a lot of stories [71:07] of people being healed um and and u but [71:12] this is anecdotal evidence and I'm not [71:14] going to deny anybody's experience. if [71:16] you tell me you had inoperable cancer or [71:19] or [71:21] but now you're you don't something [71:23] happened and I can't tell you what it [71:25] was. But at the same time there's no [71:28] statistical relevance to that. Um it's [71:31] also the case that even when I was in [71:33] Bible school um one of my teachers said [71:37] I wonder why healers faith healers never [71:40] start with amputees. You know they [71:42] always start with diseases you can't see [71:44] like cancer. um and explain how it went [71:47] away. But I said they said also in the [71:50] Bible and the Bible itself, you know, [71:51] says this, Jesus not only healed people, [71:54] he raised them from the dead. So if [71:56] somebody claims to be a healer in the [71:58] same vein as Jesus, I'd like to see them [72:01] start at cemeteries uh and start raising [72:04] people from the dead. We're not seeing [72:05] that. And we don't see amputees healed. [72:07] Um we see things that are sort of [72:09] subjective experiences. So that and I'm [72:12] not claiming that nobody has a right to [72:13] believe what they believe or that I'm [72:15] right about all these things but these [72:16] are the reason this is part of the [72:18] reasoning process that went through my [72:20] mind and I thought [72:22] >> yeah I just can't I just can't uh do [72:25] this anymore. I cannot tell these people [72:27] to believe something that they have [72:29] reasonable objections against and I [72:32] don't have reasonable answers for. [72:34] >> So to me they made more sense than I [72:36] did. Well, there's so many of these [72:40] ancient religions that have very similar [72:43] stories to the Jesus story. [72:46] >> Yes, [72:46] >> it seems like a very old story. And I'm [72:51] of the opinion that what you're getting [72:54] with all of these religious texts is [72:58] there were some events and there's some [73:01] sort of a documentation of this events, [73:04] but it's very hard to figure out what [73:07] exactly happened, right? [73:09] >> Like for instance, [73:11] >> Paul never met Jesus. [73:12] >> No. [73:14] >> When most people find that out, they go, [73:15] "Wait, what?" So all that stuff that [73:17] Jesus said, Paul's writing down and [73:20] well, how does Paul know this? And then [73:22] you go, "Oh, well, Paul met Jesus in a [73:25] dream." Like, "Hold the [ __ ] on." [73:28] >> Right. See, ironically, the Pahas might [73:30] actually take that as evidence, right? [73:32] But [73:32] >> I mean, Jesus came back to their camp as [73:34] a fast war. [73:35] >> But we said, you know, I learned in in [73:37] in uh in Bible school that all the [73:40] apostles had to have met Jesus. And Paul [73:42] was an apostle. Therefore, he had to met [73:43] Jesus. And so I said, "Well, when did he [73:45] meet Jesus?" And they said, "On the road [73:46] to Damascus." He had the revelation of [73:49] Jesus on the road to Damascus. So he met [73:51] him. [73:51] >> But um [73:52] >> it's tricky. [73:53] >> It's tricky. [73:54] >> It's tricky. It's also um again [73:58] when you get especially to the Old [74:00] Testament, like what were they [74:03] documenting? What what what are what are [74:05] these events? What happened there? You [74:08] know, there's some there's some stories [74:10] that you say, okay, like the flood story [74:12] for example. Boy, there's a lot of [74:14] those. There's a lot of those in all [74:15] sorts of ancient religions. It seems to [74:18] be a some sort of a historical record of [74:21] some sort of a catastrophe, [74:23] >> right? All the other stuff that's [74:25] attached to it, you just got to go, I'm [74:27] not sure what this means, [74:29] >> right? You know, when I was a little [74:31] boy, you know, my mother died when I was [74:32] very young, but when I was a little boy, [74:33] we would drive up from Imperial Valley, [74:35] California to San Diego, and you got to [74:37] go through the mountains, and there's [74:39] this line of white stones that I noticed [74:41] near the top of the mountains. And I [74:43] said, you know, what caused that? And my [74:46] mother said, the flood. And I thought, [74:48] whoa, that makes sense. Must be the [74:50] flood. I'm like seven, you know. And so [74:54] this is the some of this stuff gets [74:56] started this way and it becomes truth. [74:58] Well, I mean, it's certainly when you're [75:00] talking about a time, [75:02] thousands of years ago where just the [75:05] ability to read was very limited and [75:08] then you're translating things from [75:09] languages that we don't even speak [75:11] anymore. It's it's it's it gets real [75:13] squirrely when you try to figure out [75:15] what these events actually were that [75:17] they were documenting. [75:19] It's it it's the having a belief system. [75:22] I think there's a lot of value to it. I [75:24] think it gives you a moral scaffolding, [75:27] gives you structure in your life, and [75:28] that alone is like super beneficial to [75:31] people. And the people that I know that [75:32] are like true Christians, really follow [75:34] the teachings of Jesus Christ, they're [75:37] some of the nicest people I've ever met. [75:38] I think there's really great benefit to [75:40] that. [75:41] >> The problem is like what what are we [75:43] saying? You know, what what exactly like [75:46] do you the Adam and Eve one, it's like, [75:48] okay, what do you think happened? [75:50] >> Do you think there's two people that's [75:51] the only two people on earth? And then [75:52] where do the other people come from? The [75:54] brothers and sisters just have sex with [75:56] each other, [75:57] >> right? [75:57] >> What? [75:58] >> Yeah. I mean, evolution explains that [76:00] obviously very well, but Adam and Eve, [76:03] you know, I I remember when my mother [76:04] told me the story of eating the apple [76:08] and betraying God. [76:09] >> And Adam is hiding out and God says, [76:13] "Where are you?" And I told I asked my [76:16] mother, I said, "I thought God knew [76:17] everything. Why is he asking him [76:19] >> where he is? I don't understand that." [76:21] Uh and she said, 'Well, he wants him to [76:22] confess it. Well, there's always that [76:24] kind of answer. You can always give that [76:26] kind of answer, but we, you know, you [76:28] don't have to focus on religion. You can [76:30] even go to paleo anthropology and you [76:33] can look at are there 20 species of homo [76:36] that used to exist in the past or more? [76:38] Or were there just three, erectus, [76:40] Neanderthal, and sapiens? Um, and what [76:43] does it mean to be a species? And how [76:46] can we really prove some of that stuff [76:48] before the work of Svante PBO and the [76:51] decoding the DNA the genome of uh of [76:56] ancient creatures doing this thing that [76:58] people thought was impossible. That was [76:59] speculation. That was it was really hard [77:01] to tell. Um and and there were a lot of [77:05] controversies. And now we can look at [77:08] the genetic record and we can look at [77:09] the genome, but that still doesn't tell [77:12] us everything. So, a lot of straight [77:14] history and a lot of paleo uh [77:17] anthropology and paleo archaeology, all [77:19] of these things always involve, as any [77:22] theory does, speculation. You're in um [77:25] you're guessing and then trying to test [77:28] your guess. And some things are easier [77:30] to test than other things. And so [77:32] science is a community of people who [77:37] believe they can work towards the truth, [77:38] but the only way to do that is to have [77:41] good guesses and know how to test them [77:43] and be willing to admit that you're [77:46] wrong and then move on to the next best [77:48] guess. [77:48] >> Right. [77:49] >> Um and and every scientist recognizes [77:52] this, but in practice it's really hard. [77:56] >> Well, it's certainly hard if you're also [77:57] a fundamentalist Christian. [77:58] >> Oh, yeah. That makes it much harder [78:00] >> cuz then you you're living in conflict [78:02] all the time. You believe a guy came [78:03] back from the dead, but show me proof [78:05] for everything else. [78:05] >> Yeah. Yeah. You believe in miracles, but [78:07] you can't they certainly can't be [78:09] produced on demand anymore. [78:11] >> You also believe that people tell the [78:13] truth. That's that's part of the [78:15] problem. Part of the problem with all [78:16] this stuff is like look, the the Bible [78:18] condones slavery. Talks about slavery in [78:21] multiple passages. [78:23] >> Yeah. [78:24] >> Um that's a person thing. That's a [78:26] people thing, [78:26] >> right? That's [78:28] >> yeah the Bible talks about um all sorts [78:30] of things that you know we don't uh [78:32] agree with uh today but we try to um [78:37] interpret it in such a way that we can [78:39] live with it [78:39] >> right exactly [78:41] >> uh you know so God I mean if you read [78:43] anything by Mark Twain about God which [78:45] is not only brilliant but funny uh you [78:48] know um he he just makes fun of the [78:52] whole notion that um [78:54] >> says religion started when the first Con [78:56] man made the first sucker. [78:58] >> Yeah. And you know how many germs? He he [79:01] has this story about Noah's arc about [79:03] how Noah's family had to be so infested [79:05] with germs so they could survive [79:08] the flood, you know. Um when when you [79:11] stop and think about I mean like you [79:14] know the the ark came to rest on Mount [79:17] Ararat and then all these creatures had [79:19] to boogie on down to Australia almost [79:21] immediately. And so you get these [79:24] stories and people don't want to talk [79:26] about those things. They Well, I don't [79:27] know how God did it. [79:28] >> I think there was an event and I think [79:31] this this version of it, this doctrine [79:34] that you're supposed to adhere to is [79:38] woefully uninformed about the actual [79:42] like real facts of the event. [79:44] >> I don't think anybody could possibly [79:46] know. But I think when you have the epic [79:47] of Gilgamesh, which mirrors the story of [79:50] Noah's arc, which mirrors the story of [79:53] other religions that have similar flood [79:55] myths or flood stories, it's probably [79:57] something happened. [79:58] >> Yeah. [79:58] >> Yeah. It's probably one of the things [80:00] that happened, [80:01] >> right? I mean, you can you can tell [80:04] people it would be intellectually [80:07] dishonest to tell people that all the [80:09] claims of their religion are false. How [80:11] do you know that? You don't know that. [80:13] And I used to tell Christians, I said, [80:15] you know, when I was a Christian, the [80:17] best evidence for God is what he's done [80:19] in your life. And are you living a [80:22] better life? And if you're not living a [80:23] better life, then why are you saying [80:24] that he saved you, [80:26] >> right? [80:26] >> And if you can't live a moral more moral [80:29] life than people who don't know Christ, [80:32] then what are you saying? You claim that [80:34] he changed your life for the good, but [80:36] you're not living a life for the good. [80:38] You know, I I worked I went to work in [80:40] construction when I was still in high [80:42] school for a Christian contractor and I [80:46] was in the union. I joined the laborers [80:47] union which meant that as a hod carrier [80:49] that's the hardest job I ever did that [80:52] um you got paid $8.25 an hour and this [80:55] is 1968 and that was a lot of money in [80:57] 1968. And the guy told me when I got [81:00] hired he said the union says I got to [81:03] pay $8.25 an hour but I'm not going to [81:05] pay you that. I'm going to write you [81:06] down as only working four hours a day, [81:08] but you're going to work eight. And [81:10] that's how he got around it. And I [81:11] thought, this guy's a Christian and he's [81:14] lying on these forms and on his taxes, [81:16] and he's going to church. And um I got [81:20] the job through my Christian missionary [81:21] father-in-law who knew this guy. And and [81:24] I saw that happening time and time [81:26] again. Um, so very often, unfortunately, [81:30] people who claim to be religious and [81:32] follow the commandments of Jesus, which [81:34] are much more difficult to follow than [81:36] the commandments of the Old Testament, [81:38] um, because they affect your thoughts [81:40] and not just your overt action. [81:43] >> Um, when you don't see consistency, the [81:46] answer could be, well, we're just [81:47] humans. We can't, we're not perfect. And [81:49] that's true. But why doesn't the Holy [81:52] Spirit that you say you believe in make [81:54] a bigger difference in your life than he [81:56] does in Joe Schmo down the street who [81:59] doesn't claim anything and he's leading [82:01] a more moral life than you are. [82:02] >> Especially if you're robbing laborers. [82:04] >> Yeah. Exactly. You know, [82:05] >> and lying on your taxes. Yeah. [82:07] >> Yeah. And so when you're with the peda [82:11] um they live a subsistence lifestyle, [82:14] >> right? And there's been a lot of [82:16] evidence that subsistence lifestyles are [82:20] some of the most compatible lifestyles [82:24] in terms of like people's happiness and [82:27] peace and and having like a sense of [82:31] a sense of meaning. Like your your life [82:34] is wrapped around the gathering of food [82:36] and community and spending time [82:37] together. And they're the happiest [82:39] people in the world, [82:40] >> right? I you know I I monitor them for a [82:42] while. How many hours a week does a [82:44] hunter work? [82:46] >> And I came up with about 15 or 20 hours [82:48] a week. [82:48] >> Yeah. [82:49] >> To and and so [82:50] >> unless it's not going well. [82:51] >> Yeah. And then Yeah. Like now they're [82:53] doing they're doing it all the time. But [82:54] when the fish are jumping, [82:56] >> it's it's that and then so what do you [82:58] do with the rest of your time? You lay [82:59] around the fire and tell jokes and talk [83:01] to people and play with your kids. You [83:03] know, the men love to play with their [83:04] everybody [83:05] >> better in pure subsistence, too, because [83:07] they're not even preserving food, [83:09] >> right? If they don't find food today, [83:11] they go hungry today. [83:12] >> Have you ever seen the Warner Herszog [83:14] documentary, Happy People? [83:16] >> I haven't seen that. I did meet him [83:18] once, but uh I haven't um I haven't seen [83:21] that documentary. He's really big into [83:24] these kinds of societies. I know that [83:26] >> that's what Happy People's about. It's [83:27] about these people that live in Siberia, [83:29] >> right? [83:30] >> They're hunters and trappers that live [83:32] in Siberia and they're all happy, [83:34] >> right? [83:34] >> Yeah. And they they basically just spend [83:36] most of their time gathering food. [83:38] gathering food and then spending time [83:40] with the communities. [83:41] >> Yeah. Well, the documentary that was [83:42] made about the peta by the Smithsonian [83:44] and a couple of other institutions [83:48] uh it's called the grammar of happiness [83:50] because the film crew that went with me [83:54] was very small like three people but um [83:56] they were deeply impressed by what they [83:58] saw and the level of happiness and all [84:00] the psychologists that I've taken and [84:01] linguists have also been very impressed [84:04] by the level if they get past the heat [84:06] and they get past the confrontation with [84:09] your body and you know The peda don't [84:12] have outouses. They don't have, you [84:14] know, I mean, if somebody needs to take [84:15] a dump, they walk off 10 feet into the [84:17] bush and do it. Um, and so we have to [84:21] have [84:21] >> Do they have toilet paper? [84:23] >> No. [84:23] >> What do they do? [84:24] >> A stick or leaves. [84:26] >> Oh, sticks. Hey. [84:27] >> Or if you have corn cobs, that's great. [84:29] But they don't have corn. [84:30] >> Cobs. Good lord. [84:32] >> Yeah. So, [84:34] >> so yeah, but it's just not a big deal. [84:36] They grow up that way. It's just a a [84:38] function, you know. Oh, and so you ask [84:40] them things about life. What happens to [84:41] you after you die? What do you mean? [84:44] Well, when you're dead, what happens? [84:45] Well, you're dead. Um, you and so [84:48] there's like a dead monkey that somebody [84:49] just brought back and they're going to [84:50] eat. And he says, "He's dead. What? What [84:52] do you What else is there? What? Why are [84:54] you asking this question? We die. We [84:56] die." And they don't fear death. They [84:59] don't have to They don't make up a story [85:00] to make themselves not fear death. They [85:02] just [85:02] >> Were there a lot of them injured? [85:04] >> Oh, yeah. They get they they live a [85:06] violent life. They get I have people [85:07] who, you know, people bitten by snakes, [85:10] cut I had had people who split their [85:12] hand almost in two with a machete, run [85:14] arrows all the way up their arm, uh, [85:17] step on sticks that go all the way [85:19] through their foot. I mean, these are [85:20] people who are naked running through the [85:22] jungle and they get scratches and you [85:25] know, you know, if you get bitten by a [85:27] by a snake that's hemattoxic, like it's [85:32] a [85:33] jaradaka, I don't know what it is in in [85:35] it's a bushmaster. When you get bit by [85:38] one of those things, even if you [85:40] survive, a lot of the flesh is going to [85:42] come off whatever they bit. So you see [85:44] people with one leg normal and one leg [85:46] that looks like bone because it's [85:48] basically bone with a little bit of [85:49] muscle covered in skin [85:51] >> because the flesh all fell off after the [85:52] snake bite. [85:55] >> So they they know what it is to suffer [85:58] and they're tough. You know, if you get [85:59] a toothache, how do you fix it? Well, if [86:02] I'm there, I have some things that can [86:03] help with the pain or I can pull the [86:05] tooth, but most of the time it rots out. [86:09] That's how they deal with it. So they [86:12] learn, you know, I I was talking to a [86:14] woman one time, you know, really for, [86:17] you know, pina looking, very [86:18] feminine-looking woman, and she gets bit [86:20] by a wasp on the face while I'm talking [86:22] to her. And she pulls the stinger out [86:24] and she doesn't, it doesn't stop her [86:26] conversation. And I've been stung by [86:28] those wasps and I know they hurt like [86:29] hell. And I said, "Didn't that hurt?" [86:32] Yeah. Well, you didn't say anything. She [86:34] says, "I'm not a baby." You know, so [86:37] this is the way they are. [86:39] >> Wow. From the time they're children, [86:40] they learn to deal with pain. They learn [86:42] to be tough. In fact, they have an [86:44] expression for that. He wants to be [86:45] hard. And that means you deliberately [86:48] sleep sometimes less than you need. You [86:50] go hungry on purpose and you put [86:52] yourself in hard situations because you [86:54] want to be tough because that's what the [86:56] environment demands. [86:58] >> So, they build their resilience on [87:00] purpose. [87:00] >> Yes. [87:02] >> Voluntarily. Well, I would imagine [87:04] that's like the most important thing to [87:06] have. If you're running around naked in [87:07] the jungle, you have to be tough, [87:09] >> right? You you have to be. And uh you [87:11] know, like I I was I go barefoot [87:13] sometimes in the village. I'm you know, [87:15] I get you can get parasites that way, [87:18] but you know, I do it anyway. And um but [87:21] when I go to the jungle, I always put on [87:23] shoes because my feet can't take all the [87:25] thorns and everything. And theirs are [87:27] covered with like a whole layer of [87:30] callus all around their foot. [87:32] >> They have those crazy spled out toes as [87:34] well. [87:34] >> Yeah. Yeah. And that's the way feet are [87:36] supposed to look really. You know, ours [87:38] don't look that way because we protect [87:40] them. But their feet are tough. You [87:42] know, their hands are tough, their skin [87:44] is tough. It's like leather. Even a [87:46] little kid, they they're little kids. Uh [87:48] rather than crawl, they scoot around on [87:51] their butt. And um so you pick a little [87:53] kid up and you look at their butt and [87:54] it's just callous. [87:56] >> It's just solid callous. And these kids [87:58] are tough. [88:01] But um they take they they by their [88:04] standards they're very gentle to their [88:06] kids. I had a guy with me one time and [88:08] he was trying to sleep at night and a [88:10] baby was screaming all night. And he [88:12] said why don't they tell that baby to [88:14] shut up? And I said why? I said they [88:17] don't need to tell it to shut up. That's [88:18] just part of life. You know they don't [88:20] have a schedule to keep tomorrow. He [88:21] said what would happen if I went over [88:23] and swatted it on the behind? I said [88:24] they'd kill you. They'd kill me. I said [88:27] yeah you don't hit kids. They don't [88:28] believe in hitting kids. swat a baby to [88:31] get it to does he think that's how [88:32] babies stop screaming? [88:34] >> I don't know. I mean, [88:35] >> does he have any kids? [88:37] >> I don't think this guy did, but [88:39] Christians often believe really believe [88:41] spare the rod and spoil the child. And [88:44] they believe very much in corporate [88:46] >> back then at least, right? [88:47] >> Yeah. Back then, I don't know today, but [88:49] um [88:50] >> you know, so the Peter never believed [88:52] this. [88:54] They don't accept it. [88:56] >> Well, I think they're probably correct. [88:58] It's it is interesting how those people [89:00] are happier. Like we've done something [89:02] to ourselves by forcing ourselves into [89:04] cities and jobs and constant stress and [89:08] bills and taxes and all these external [89:11] things that we've attached to our lives [89:12] that we think are 100% necessary. [89:15] >> Yeah. [89:15] >> Don't bring anybody any happier. Not [89:18] don't bring anybody any more happiness. [89:20] In fact, make you way more miserable. [89:23] Make you susceptible to a bunch of [89:25] stress related illnesses. [89:26] >> Yeah. I've had friends visit me in the [89:29] jungle. I mean researchers who are [89:30] friends and they'll say things like, [89:34] "I've never seen you so relaxed. You [89:36] know, you seem tense when you're at the [89:38] university, but down here you just seem [89:39] totally laidback." And I said, "Well, I [89:42] didn't notice it, but that makes perfect [89:44] sense to me because all these people are [89:46] laid-back. There's Peta that I go to [89:47] talk to the guy and I find myself [89:49] nodding off and I'm not even sleepy and [89:52] when I go over there, but he's just so [89:54] laidback and talks so calmly and softly [89:57] and telling jokes and things that it [90:00] just puts me to sleep. God, [90:01] >> it's such a bummer that those people [90:02] have to struggle now. [90:03] >> Yeah, it's terrible. [90:07] >> It's um [90:08] >> What did they hunt? What do they eat? [90:10] >> 70% of their diet before they started [90:12] having river problems was fish. So the [90:16] average diet of a pita family is uh fish [90:20] and water and jungle nuts and things you [90:23] get from the jungle. Hunter gatherers, [90:25] which they are, have healthier diets [90:28] than agriculturalists because, you know, [90:30] we had this um this outbreak of disease [90:33] from lettuce recently in this country. [90:37] >> They don't grow vegetables, so they're [90:39] never going to get that kind of thing. [90:40] They don't get that in naturally [90:41] occurring things out in the jungle, [90:43] >> right? So, their diets are healthier. [90:46] They're eating protein. Um, I know, for [90:49] example, that I could take any pita man [90:51] out of the jungle at random. And if I [90:54] weigh him, he's going to be 155 pounds. [90:57] He's going to have about a 25 inch [91:00] waist, 26. He's going to um have about [91:04] 4% body fat and he's just going to be [91:07] lean mean machine. and they don't they [91:11] do try to harden themselves but that's [91:13] just what the life does to you [91:16] >> but they're not overweight they're not [91:17] dealing with obesity diabetes [91:20] >> only when outsiders uh you know [91:24] representatives of the Brazilian [91:25] government thought it would be good to [91:27] give them something to rely on so they [91:29] brought in a lot of rice and they [91:31] started letting the people feed the [91:33] people don't grow rice but the [91:34] government would supply it so now all of [91:36] a sudden you see people overweight [91:40] because they're eating starch which they [91:42] never used to eat that much of or I took [91:44] a dentist in once about 25 years ago and [91:48] we inspected the mouth of every living [91:50] paha and not one cavity. He he was [91:53] disappointed. He said, "I thought I was [91:54] going to be able to do some free dental [91:56] work here and nobody has a cavity." [91:58] Well, then somebody introduced sugar [92:00] cane into their fields from the outside [92:03] world and now it's almost 100% cavities. [92:06] Everybody has cavities uh because they [92:08] eat sugar cane. [92:09] >> Wow. [92:10] >> So, you keep away the sweets, you keep [92:11] away the starch, and you get healthier [92:14] people. This is just living proof of [92:15] what we often read about diets, [92:19] but that we're so tempted by uh that we [92:21] don't normally follow. [92:22] >> I heard another issue with them is when [92:24] they get introduced to soda. [92:27] >> Yeah. That's bad. [92:28] >> Yeah. [92:29] >> Also whiskey, but that's a different [92:30] matter. [92:31] >> Sure. [92:32] >> But they're both bad. Soda is Yeah. I [92:34] mean, they love it. They call it, you [92:36] know, sweet water and they will drink [92:38] the hell out of that. If they got, you [92:40] know, five gallons, they'll drink it [92:41] all. I had a guy once who wo a basket [92:44] for me. And I said, you know, what what [92:46] do you want for it? And he and he knew [92:48] that I had some canned fruit that I used [92:51] on Sundays for my kids when we were all [92:53] living there. And he said, I want a can [92:55] of uh those I want a can of this stuff, [92:56] which is peaches and sweet syrup. And uh [93:00] it was a big can. And he ate that whole [93:02] thing, you know. And the kids came [93:03] around. And I've seen guys trade with a [93:05] boat and they'll get like a kilo of [93:07] sugar, two and a half pounds of sugar, [93:09] and they just sit down with a spoon and [93:11] eat it. [93:11] >> Oh boy. [93:12] >> And so if they have it, they eat it. And [93:14] if they don't have it, they don't. [93:15] >> And they have no idea that it's bad for [93:16] them because it tastes good. Why would [93:17] it be bad? [93:18] >> Right? You can eat anything you find as [93:21] a hunter gatherer and you're not going [93:22] to have enough of it to be bad for you, [93:25] >> right? [93:25] >> Because you're going to get something [93:26] else the next day. Or like tobacco. I [93:28] can take in tobacco, but they're not [93:30] going to get addicted to it. They're not [93:31] going to, you know, they even when they [93:33] roll cigarettes, they like them, but [93:35] they don't they only have it like once [93:37] or twice a year, so you don't have to [93:38] worry about it. [93:40] >> You know, if they had it all the time, [93:41] they would have serious issues. [93:43] >> So, they've only developed addictions [93:45] based on what they've been introduced [93:47] from the Western world, [93:48] >> right? 100%. [93:51] >> So, tell me about this conversion that [93:53] you have. Tell me about how you like how [93:56] what are the steps to go from being a [93:58] true believer living with the peta and [94:01] then changing your opinions. How how [94:03] many steps did it take? [94:05] >> It took some practical steps and it took [94:08] a lot of mental steps. Um [94:10] >> how much time? [94:12] >> I would say that I started seriously [94:14] doubting my faith about five or six [94:16] years into my time. So about 1982, 1983 [94:21] and I did not announce that I was not a [94:23] Christian until 2000. [94:25] >> Um and um [94:29] because Christians were saying things [94:31] about actually it was 2001. Christians [94:33] were saying things about the war in Iraq [94:36] about how the the soldiers that we send [94:38] over there are the blessed peacemakers [94:40] of the gospel. And uh [94:43] >> I didn't like that. And so uh what the [94:46] first step is you start to doubt. Then [94:48] you pray so that you won't doubt because [94:51] the apostle Thomas said Lord I believe [94:54] help my unbelief. [94:56] But then after a certain point that [94:58] doesn't work so well. So you start to [95:00] read literature from apologetics trying [95:03] to defend these you know defend your [95:06] mind against these things that you're [95:07] thinking and then you realize I'm not [95:09] satisfied with those answers either. So [95:11] finally one day you reach the conclusion [95:14] that I just I just can't do it anymore. [95:17] I can't sustain [95:20] this belief. I can't pretend that I have [95:22] something that I'm not. And so uh then [95:25] eventually I told my wife, I said, "I [95:28] just don't believe this stuff anymore. I [95:30] can't believe it." And um [95:34] pretty much instantaneously she walked [95:36] out of the house and we got a divorce. [95:38] >> Wow. [95:38] >> That was the end of that. Also, if [95:40] you're a Christian missionary and you're [95:41] getting your income from being a [95:43] missionary and then you tell people, [95:44] "Oh, I don't believe anymore." Then you [95:45] you're unemployed. [95:46] >> Did you have any other issues in the [95:48] marriage other than that? [95:49] >> Yeah, it wasn't uh that wasn't the only [95:51] issue. But she tracked up all the issues [95:53] we had to what she perceived as my [95:56] declining faith. [95:57] >> Oh, [95:58] >> because [95:59] >> of course [96:00] >> um you know, I um [96:04] I loved rock music before we met. We met [96:06] at a Jimmyi Hendris concert and I went [96:07] many years without listening to rock [96:09] music and I love rock music and so I [96:12] finally started listening to it again [96:14] and um [96:15] >> she got upset. [96:16] >> That was a sign that I was starting to [96:18] fade away in my faith. [96:20] >> Um and you know so and I'm not a perfect [96:23] person. You know I would go out with [96:25] Brazilian friends uh drinking and that's [96:27] definitely a no no. [96:29] >> Um and um [96:31] >> any religion that tries to keep you from [96:33] Hrix [96:34] >> Yeah. Yeah. It can't be can't be a real [96:36] religion. [96:36] >> My dad said to me when I first became a [96:38] Christian, you know, he was the epitome [96:39] of an atheist, you know, and he he said, [96:42] um, the one thing about religions is [96:45] they're always trying to beat their own [96:47] system. They're always trying to find an [96:49] exception so they don't have to do the [96:51] unpleasant things the religion tells [96:53] them they need to do. [96:54] >> Yeah. [96:54] >> And uh I thought, "Oh, you don't know [96:56] anything. You know, you're you don't [96:58] know anything about religion. You've [96:59] never been in part of a church." But [97:01] it's not entirely false. People are [97:04] always trying to make, you know, it's [97:05] like um another expression that comes to [97:08] mind when you're if you see somebody who [97:11] says they're a believer and now they [97:12] start doing things you don't think they [97:14] should do, there's one there are two [97:16] reactions you could have. One is justice [97:17] and one is mercy. And everybody wants to [97:20] give justice and get mercy uh for their [97:23] beliefs and uh for their transgressions. [97:26] >> Um and so I was giving myself mercy and [97:30] my wife was giving me justice. But in [97:33] the end, I realized I'm not going to be [97:35] bound by these rules anymore. I'm just [97:37] going to live my life according to my [97:39] best lights and according to the best [97:40] decisions, and I'm not going to let this [97:42] book tell me anymore. And the ironic [97:44] thing is, you know, I graduated number [97:45] one in my class at a Bible school, so I [97:47] know the Bible really well. And and when [97:49] people try to reconvert me, I've had [97:51] many Christians try to reconvert me. I [97:53] said, "That's not going to work, you [97:54] know, because I know the Bible probably [97:56] better than you do. So, you're not going [97:57] to give me a verse I don't know." I [97:59] said, "I'm not telling you you're wrong, [98:01] and I'm not even telling you your [98:03] interpretation is wrong. I'm just saying [98:04] it doesn't work for me, and I can't I [98:06] can't pretend that it does." [98:07] >> Right? [98:08] It's uh it's got to be weird to have [98:13] your beliefs confronted by a group of [98:15] people where as you're learning their [98:18] language, you're realizing that this [98:22] moral framework and the scaffolding that [98:24] you've only attributed to Christianity [98:26] and you think that it's just [98:28] Christianity and religion that makes [98:30] people good people and then there here's [98:32] people that don't have any God. [98:34] >> Right. Yeah. So like you know you're in [98:36] a big storm. The Amazon has storms in [98:38] the rainy season. So, somebody's house [98:40] blows over because their houses, they're [98:42] hunter gatherers and they're [98:43] semi-nomeatic, so they don't build the [98:45] best houses. So, it's pouring rain and [98:47] somebody's house blows over and they're [98:49] just stuck there in the rain. What is [98:51] their reaction? They start laughing like [98:54] it's the funniest thing that ever [98:55] happened. And they will go off into [98:57] other people's huts and sleep on the [98:59] ground or get near the fire or they [99:00] might come to my house. That's very [99:01] common. And want to sleep with me and [99:03] then the next day they'll rebuild it. [99:05] There's nothing except for fear of [99:07] immediate threat from the outside or [99:10] from animals that gets them to lose [99:12] their cool. And when they do lose their [99:14] cool, it's not really losing their cool. [99:17] It is calculated defense. They know how [99:22] to take care of themselves. You know, [99:23] somebody's when I mentioned to this guy [99:25] that they would kill him, they said I [99:27] said they kill for a living. Don't [99:28] forget that. That's how they make their [99:30] living. Every man there, every boy here [99:33] could shoot you through the eye at 50 [99:35] yards with one of those arrows. They're [99:37] not going to miss. If they decide to [99:39] kill you or me, we're dead. Um, so they [99:43] don't because they make a difference [99:44] between killing out of necessity and [99:46] killing to murder. But if they think [99:49] they have to defend their family, you're [99:51] dead. [99:51] >> But their culture doesn't encourage [99:53] squables. Like they just they're [99:55] easygoing. They take everything. The [99:57] biggest if there's a concept of sin [99:59] among the paha, it is anger. You don't [100:02] raise your voice in anger. You don't hit [100:04] another paha in anger. You know, I I saw [100:07] a guy get drunk. When they get alcohol, [100:10] they get drunk. And he took a shotgun [100:12] that he had gotten from a Brazilian and [100:14] he shot a dog that belonged to his [100:17] brother. [100:17] >> Oh. [100:18] >> And his brother runs up to the dog and [100:21] he's just sobbing because they love [100:23] their dogs. And he's just crying that [100:24] his dog's dead. And I went up to him and [100:26] I thought, 'Oh god, there's going to be [100:28] some violence here. I got to get ready [100:29] for this. And I said, 'What are you [100:31] going to do?' He said, 'What do you [100:32] mean?' I said, 'Are you going to do [100:34] anything to your brother? He shot your [100:36] dog. He said, I don't do anything to my [100:38] brother. He's my brother. He shouldn't [100:39] have shot my dog, but he's drunk and his [100:41] head's not working. You know, I miss my [100:43] dog. I love my dog, but I love my [100:45] brother. I'm not going to hurt my [100:46] brother. So, they just don't react that [100:48] way. [100:48] >> So, do they have punishment for crimes? [100:52] They have punishment if it threatens the [100:54] survival of the village. So, there was [100:56] one young man, a teenager, and I talk [100:59] about him in um in both my book, Don't [101:02] Sleep, There Are Snakes, and in the new [101:03] one that's coming out next year, Born of [101:06] the River. um who was paid in alcohol [101:10] and a new shotgun to kill somebody who [101:13] was um living up the river who wasn't a [101:17] peda living on the same river and he [101:20] killed him and the paha saw this as an [101:24] existential threat to the whole [101:25] community because they knew that the [101:27] police could come up they knew that [101:28] soldiers could come up they knew that [101:31] many paha could be killed if if this [101:33] wasn't handled so they didn't hurt him [101:35] but they kicked him out of the village [101:36] She had to live on his own and he died [101:39] about two months later. He was dead. [101:41] It's hard to live on your own in the [101:42] middle of the jungle with no community [101:43] and nobody who has anything to do with [101:45] you just shot. [101:46] >> Wow. [101:47] >> So, um that's the worst punishment they [101:50] have. [101:50] >> Banishment. [101:51] >> Banishment. [101:52] >> Banishment. The jungle's crazy. [101:55] >> Yeah. [101:55] >> What did they give him to survive? Was [101:57] it like you when you were learn [102:00] >> nothing? [102:00] >> Yeah. Get out. He could take what he [102:02] had, [102:02] >> but nobody gave him anything else. So, [102:04] he had a bow and arrow, no food, no [102:06] clothes. [102:07] >> How did he die? [102:08] >> Um, well, that I don't know because I [102:11] just know that when I came I I would ask [102:14] about him and then they said, "Oh, he's [102:16] dead." So, there's two possibilities. He [102:18] died naturally death, which I think is [102:20] probably what happened or somebody [102:22] killed him. [102:23] >> And then changed their name. I didn't do [102:25] it. [102:25] >> Yeah. Yeah. That's easily that could [102:27] have easily happened. Um, because [102:29] >> the change of the name gag is awesome. [102:31] >> Yeah. Everybody up there is violent. You [102:33] see Brazilians coming up in these boats. [102:35] Many of them are like pirates. I mean, [102:37] they don't practice piracy now. Some of [102:39] them do. But you you go on a boat with [102:42] these guys and these are some tough [102:44] looking guys. They got scars on their [102:45] faces and scars on their these are knife [102:47] fights. These are guys who, you know, [102:51] like I I got really mad at somebody once [102:54] and I mentioned to another Brazilian, I [102:56] said, you know, if he keeps doing that, [102:58] I'm going to punch him in the face. And [102:59] he says, if you punch him in the face, [103:01] he's going to kill you. you know, he'll [103:03] either get a knife or he'll get a gun. [103:04] So, if you decide you're going to hit [103:06] somebody, you better be armed because [103:07] they're going to come at you with [103:08] whatever weapon they can get their hands [103:09] on. [103:10] >> You really thought that you were just [103:11] going to be able to punch him? [103:13] >> I was just talking, but I you know, [103:15] obviously didn't have a lot of you know, [103:17] my dad liked to fight a lot, but um you [103:20] know, he like [103:20] >> Were you guys drunk at the time when you [103:22] were doing this? [103:23] >> Oh, no. I wasn't drunk. I this guy was [103:26] drunk and he was pushing and he was [103:28] giving my daughters who were by that [103:30] time were pretty little blonde teenagers [103:32] a hard time and I told him to get away [103:36] >> and he wanted to fight and I got it [103:39] calmed down but I thought you know if he [103:41] keeps trying I'm going to punch him in [103:42] the face and I told this guy that and he [103:44] said yeah you don't do that out here [103:46] unless you're willing to kill him right [103:48] now don't do that cuz he's not going to [103:51] fight you fair he's going to come at you [103:53] when you're not expecting it and you're [103:54] going to die. So [103:56] >> this is it's just a different concept. [103:58] So avoiding violence has lots of reasons [104:02] to be done. You you [104:04] >> I agree with that at all times. [104:07] >> Yeah, [104:07] >> I think people should constantly avoid [104:09] violence. [104:10] >> Yeah, I I completely agree too. And the [104:12] PTA house show you that these are people [104:14] who are much better at violence than [104:16] most people in this country without [104:19] guns. Um [104:20] >> and they avoid it at all cost. [104:21] >> And they avoid it at all costs. [104:23] >> Yeah. wise. [104:24] >> Yeah, very wise. [104:25] >> Um, what did you think when you were [104:27] just looking at the framework that they [104:30] live by that these people don't have a [104:32] god? [104:33] >> That they don't have like someone [104:35] watching over making sure they're doing [104:37] the right thing all the time or this [104:39] punishment of being burning forever in [104:42] hell. None of that is motivating them. [104:44] >> No. And I also thought that they would [104:46] be afraid of death. They're not. I [104:48] thought they would be afraid of the [104:51] unknown. They're not. They're willing to [104:53] learn. I sit outside on the riverbank [104:56] with them and they point out satellites [104:59] going overhead because they know the [105:01] they know the sky so well that they say, [105:03] "What's that?" And I look and it's like, [105:05] "Must be a satellite." I said, "It's [105:07] like a radio thing." Because they have [105:08] radio. I mean, I they don't have radios, [105:10] but I have radio. And um they said, [105:13] "Well, who put that up there?" I said, [105:15] "I don't know." I said, "Americans." Um [105:18] I think. And they said, "You know how to [105:21] do that?" And I said, "No, I don't know [105:22] how to do that." So they said, "Some [105:23] other Americans know how to do that." I [105:24] said, "Yeah, I I don't know how to do [105:26] that." [105:26] >> Um, but they're they're very conscious [105:29] of their environment and and they're [105:32] very curious and they want to learn [105:33] these things, but if I told them that [105:35] God put it up there, they wouldn't pay [105:37] attention. [105:37] >> Now, they have these spirits that we [105:41] talked about earlier where they believe [105:44] a thing embodies a spirit. Like it could [105:47] be like a jaguar embodies a spirit. [105:49] >> Yes. [105:50] So uh they have some spirits. So that's [105:53] a spirit we haven't talked about yet. So [105:54] they have this spirit I gaga which they [105:57] believe [105:58] you know so they might see a man and [106:00] then they might see a jaguar and then [106:02] they say that must be the same thing you [106:03] know this man became a jaguar or the [106:05] jaguar became a man. And this is a [106:08] belief that is in fact [106:10] uh shapeshifting is a not an uncommon [106:13] belief in the Amazon among even [106:15] Brazilians that live there. So, one time [106:19] uh I got up in the morning and everybody [106:21] was yelling and pointing at the beach on [106:23] the other side and I said, "Um, what are [106:27] we looking at?" They said, "Can't you [106:29] see it?" I said, "I don't see anything." [106:31] And they said, "That's IGA." And I [106:34] didn't see anything. Then later, um, a [106:37] few nights later, somebody said, "We've [106:38] seen IgA. It's dark. It's night." And [106:41] the guy wakes me up. He says, "We've [106:42] seen. He's not far behind your house. [106:44] would you come with us because we know [106:46] you're not afraid of him, you know, and [106:48] I fail for that. And um so we go out [106:51] there and then I turn around and they're [106:52] not by me because can also refer to the [106:56] jaguar shape. So there's a jaguar out [106:58] there and I just won't go walking out [107:00] there with a machete, you know, and then [107:02] I realize they're not with me and I go [107:04] back and they said, "Did you see it?" I [107:05] said, "No, I didn't see anything." Hm. [107:08] But uh they if they see a jaguar, they [107:12] believe that it could be a jaguar or it [107:14] could be eag. [107:17] But when they were seeing this eag and [107:19] you couldn't see anything, they were [107:20] seeing it. [107:21] >> Yes. And I was looking for a humanl [107:25] looking creature. But there's it's very [107:28] possible that there was a jaguar just [107:30] inside the forest that I didn't see it [107:33] and you couldn't. [107:34] >> Yeah. Because Well, yeah. But if you [107:36] walk around with them in the jungle, you [107:37] find that they can see a lot of things [107:39] you can't see. So once I was walking [107:41] with a guy down a path and he said, "Oh, [107:43] don't step on that snake. It's a [107:44] bushmaster." And I said, "What?" And I'm [107:47] looking down. I'm looking at the path. I [107:49] don't see anything. [107:50] >> And uh I said, "What snake?" And he [107:52] takes his bow and he shoots and this [107:54] arrow starts flacking around like that [107:56] and he pulls it up and there's a [107:58] bushmaster at the end. He said, "That [107:59] one. Don't step on that one." And I [108:02] didn't see it. I was and I've almost put [108:04] my hand on snakes. Um I don't know why [108:08] I'm still alive because they can they [108:10] they it's like I'm a special needs [108:13] person. I I you know they have to watch [108:15] out for me when I'm in the jungle cuz it [108:17] takes a lot of skill to be able to see [108:19] these things. Just like when I take them [108:21] to the city for like medical work, they [108:24] get totally lost. They can't they it's [108:26] hard for them to understand how I can [108:27] find my way around a city. Um because [108:30] the cues that I'm using are totally [108:33] different than the things they're used [108:34] to. [108:35] >> So this ega guy, this thing that they [108:37] said they saw, they could have just been [108:39] seeing an animal and saying it was ego [108:42] and agreeing that it was [108:43] >> yes [108:44] >> a spirit [108:44] >> and and that's not [108:45] >> it's not like they're seeing a spirit [108:47] that you're not seeing. Did you ever [108:49] take that into consideration that [108:50] perhaps they can see things you can't [108:52] see? Yes, that is another possibility [108:54] and I definitely took that in. In fact, [108:56] for the first several years before I had [108:58] really investigated the different [109:00] shapeshifting of Igagayi, I thought [109:02] that's all it could mean. They were [109:03] seeing something and I couldn't see it. [109:06] They were all seeing it. So, may [109:07] >> So, you took that into consideration [109:09] that maybe they have a sense that you [109:11] don't have. [109:12] >> Yes. And I and it's clear that they have [109:15] senses in the jungle. They're able to [109:17] sense things that I cannot. [109:18] >> Like how? Well, it's like I say, they [109:21] they've grown up learning. So, so let's [109:24] say that um let's say that you see a [109:27] branch move in a tree. Was that the [109:30] wind? Was that a monkey? Was that a [109:33] snake up in the tree? What was it? I [109:36] don't know. I barely noticed that the [109:38] branches make moving, right? [109:39] >> But they know ex not only that it's [109:41] moving, but exactly what caused it. I [109:43] can see bubbles coming out of the water [109:45] from the river. [109:47] They're just bubbles to me, but to them [109:49] they represent either a rock underneath [109:52] or a or an alligator or or some other [109:56] creature that's under the water. And [109:58] they can tell by the bubbles that I [110:00] can't. So, they've learned to interpret [110:03] their world in a way that I can't. [110:06] >> So, it's not that they don't have senses [110:08] that you don't that they have senses [110:10] that you don't have, but that they have [110:12] pattern recognition. [110:13] >> That's the way I would put it. Um, but [110:17] again, you would need to do some sort of [110:20] um psychological testing and much more [110:23] controlled conditions than I've ever [110:25] been able to do to sort those things [110:27] out. But my my view now is that they [110:30] simply have the ability to recognize and [110:33] and perceive things that they've grown [110:36] up with that I miss entirely. [110:39] And this spirit thing, does it always [110:43] embody a creature that they're that [110:46] they're that's common like a jaguar or [110:48] does it sometimes take on another form? [110:54] It can take these these um entities that [110:57] I've talked about. So there's another [110:59] one um u I I which is um has long teeth. [111:06] And so they see these different [111:08] creatures. One's naked, talks in a high [111:10] voice. Um, [111:13] and and so they're they're putting [111:15] experiences they can't explain into the [111:18] shapes of these entities that they can [111:20] explain. Um, so just like us, we see so [111:23] many things in the world we don't [111:25] understand. That's what science is all [111:26] about. So we create theoretical entities [111:29] to be able to explain those observations [111:32] that we otherwise have no explanation [111:34] for. So in a sense these separate [111:38] entities are a primitive form. I [111:40] shouldn't even use the word primitive. [111:42] They're a form of science given what [111:44] they have. They're reducing the [111:47] unexplained to the explainable. [111:49] >> And their audit of the jungle is limited [111:53] to the places that they've traveled. [111:55] >> Right? [111:55] >> So their ver their version of the world [111:58] is entirely limited to the language they [112:00] possess. Is it written at all? I [112:03] developed a writing system for them. [112:04] Yes. [112:05] >> Before you know, before non-written [112:08] language, verbal language with no [112:10] historical database to draw from, [112:12] >> right? But this they actually get some [112:15] really good skills out of this. So I [112:16] took a guy to the nearest town, a big [112:19] town, Porto Value. It's the capital of a [112:21] Brazilian state because he had cerosis [112:24] of the liver, however he got that. And I [112:27] took him to the hospital. First, we went [112:28] to my house that I had in that city on [112:31] the missionary compound. He had never [112:34] been out of the jungle before in his [112:35] life. So, we go there and we have lunch [112:37] and I said, "Now, it's time to go to the [112:39] hospital." So, I take him to the [112:40] hospital and he says, "I don't want to [112:42] stay here." I said, "The doctors say you [112:44] have to stay here so they can make you [112:46] feel better." And so, then I drive off [112:48] after I spent a couple of hours with [112:49] him. [112:51] And um the next morning about 6:00 a.m. [112:55] there's this knocking on my door. So, [112:57] this is 30 miles away. The hospital's 30 [112:59] miles away. And he's standing there [113:01] wearing a hospital gown with no [113:03] underwear or anything on. And uh I said, [113:06] "How did you find my house?" He said, [113:08] "Well, I just walked here." I said, "But [113:10] how did you know how to walk here?" [113:12] "Well, I saw it yesterday." But all he [113:14] had to do was get the river where the [113:15] river is and and then mentally compute [113:19] where we're at. So he it many [113:21] experiments have shown that people who [113:23] don't have right and left front and back [113:25] but use absolute directions like up [113:27] river down river to the jungle away from [113:29] the jungle are better at finding their [113:32] way in new places than we are. You know, [113:35] I can tell you turn north and you might [113:37] know what I'm talking about. For the [113:39] average person, I say turn north. If [113:41] your life depends on it, you don't know [113:42] which way to turn, [113:43] >> right? [113:43] >> U but they would know. And so that gives [113:46] them a better sense of a map of where [113:49] they're at. [113:49] >> So do they have a word for north? [113:52] >> No, they only use up river down. So the [113:55] first thing they have to do, the first [113:56] thing he did when we got him out to town [113:58] was where's the river? And I showed him [114:01] the river. And now he knew where [114:03] everything was. [114:05] Oh, [114:06] >> because he got the river and so he's got [114:07] my house. He now he knows where [114:09] everything is [114:10] >> 30 miles away. [114:11] >> Yeah. 30 miles away. [114:12] >> Is the But doesn't the river wind and [114:14] isn't it? [114:14] >> Yes. But they know how rivers work and [114:16] they can tell by the direction which way [114:18] it's flowing. And when he looks at it, [114:19] he knows which way is up river and down [114:21] river based on the way the water is [114:22] flowing. And he walked out barefoot with [114:25] nothing but a hospital gown on uh 30 [114:27] kilometers. And so he must have he left [114:29] at night and he got there first thing in [114:31] the morning. [114:31] >> Wow. [114:32] >> And I said, "Well, we have to go back." [114:33] He said, "I am not going back." I said, [114:35] "Well, the doctor says you'll die if you [114:37] don't go back." He says, "I'm going to [114:38] die then because I'm not going back." He [114:40] said, "I would rather go back and die [114:42] with my people." And so I took him back. [114:44] And a few days later, he was dead. [114:46] >> Did Was he a drinker? [114:48] >> He had been. Yeah. Uh there was a time [114:51] before I helped the Indian agency [114:54] demarcate their reservation so it could [114:56] be controlled that boats came up and [114:58] down all the time when the Brazil nuts [115:00] were falling and when the um there were [115:04] other jungle products like latex and [115:06] sorva which is a product used to make [115:08] chewing gum and all sorts of other [115:09] things and copaiba which is used for [115:12] suntan lotion. So the Brazilian boats [115:13] would come up and trade for all these [115:15] things and they always traded with [115:16] whiskey because that's the I mean uh uh [115:19] sugarcane rum kashasa which is the [115:22] cheapest thing you know it's 30 cents a [115:24] bottle it was a lot easier to give them [115:25] that and the pah like it you know I told [115:27] him one time I said this stuff's really [115:29] cheap it doesn't cost he said not for us [115:30] it isn't we don't otherwise get it and [115:32] we like it so [115:35] you know they like to drink [115:36] >> did they understand the concept of [115:38] health of the the consequences of [115:40] drinking alcohol [115:41] >> no Because if you're a hunter gatherer [115:43] and you're not used to having something [115:45] in constant supply, you don't have to [115:47] worry about it. But once it comes in [115:49] constant supply, then you do have to [115:51] worry about it. And when these guys keep [115:53] coming up giving leaving this stuff off, [115:55] then it becomes a serious health [115:57] problem. Whereas before it was like, I [115:59] got drunk 6 months ago, [116:00] >> right? [116:01] >> You know, it's not a big deal, [116:02] >> right? So once it became commonplace. [116:04] >> Yeah. [116:04] >> And did do they adjust their behavior [116:07] based on people dying of like liver [116:09] sclerosis? Not that I've ever seen. They [116:12] They don't I can tell them till I'm blue [116:15] in the face that it's the alcohol that's [116:17] doing this or the tobacco that's doing [116:19] this. [116:21] Why would they believe me? They know a [116:23] lot of guys who's who have drunk a lot [116:24] of whiskey and they don't have it, you [116:26] know? So these couple of guys got it. [116:28] How how do I know that's what caused it? [116:31] You know, so they don't take my word on [116:34] >> childlike. [116:36] It is childlike in the sense that um [116:38] children learn by evidence and if [116:41] children don't have evidence for [116:42] something. [116:44] I mean and it takes a while for the [116:46] evidence to start to sink in. You got to [116:47] repeat the experiment, [116:48] >> right? But you would imagine that if [116:50] they're intelligent people, you could [116:52] explain [116:54] this consumption of alcohol when done [116:57] infrequently, it's okay, but the [116:59] everyday consumption of alcohol because [117:01] you have an endless supply of it now is [117:03] becoming a real problem. That's a very [117:05] good point and I have brought that up [117:06] with them before and they say, "Yeah, we [117:10] know a lot of Brazilians that drink and [117:11] they don't get that sickness, you know, [117:13] so they come right up. It's like it's [117:15] like I could tell you that um the COVID [117:17] vaccine is really good for you." And you [117:20] can say, "Well, I know a lot of people [117:21] didn't get it and they didn't get COVID [117:22] either, you know, they didn't where [117:24] weren't vaccinated, they didn't get [117:25] COVID." So, you have to look at the [117:27] statistics and and even there it's hard, [117:30] you I mean, that was [117:31] >> They just don't seem very concerned with [117:33] dying anyway. [117:35] >> They're not um They don't want to die [117:38] right now, but it happens and they're [117:40] not worried about it. [117:42] >> What do they think? Do they have a [117:45] purpose for life? Do they have a thing [117:48] they worship at all? [117:50] >> No, they don't worship anything. They [117:52] The community is everything. You You [117:55] make a contribution to the community [117:57] while you're alive. And and that's your [117:59] purpose. [118:00] >> That's it. [118:01] >> That's it. And and uh it doesn't take [118:03] any thought. You don't need somebody to [118:05] give a lesson. This is what our purpose [118:07] is, folks. You just see everybody living [118:09] and that's how you live. [118:10] >> Isn't it odd that that's not the primary [118:13] way people live if that that makes you [118:16] so happy? It's interesting because even [118:18] me, I'm hearing this, I'm like, God, [118:20] it's so appealing. But part of me is [118:22] like, I'm not [ __ ] living like that. [118:23] You know, nobody wants to live like [118:25] that. just seems too crazy, too [118:27] difficult, too daunting. I don't want to [118:29] get bit by a snake and have my bones [118:31] exposed. [118:32] >> Well, I often think this when I talk to [118:34] people who are extreme ecologists who [118:36] think we need to not affect the [118:38] environment. And I'm thinking, yeah, [118:39] well, go live with the paha. You know, [118:41] you're not going to last three days [118:42] there with them. [118:44] >> Um maybe a few days more, but not much. [118:47] Um so [118:49] it is very appealing. and I lived there [118:52] and enjoyed it. But while I was living [118:53] there, I had things they didn't have [118:55] access to. So I I can't fairly say that [118:57] I live just like them. I have [118:58] >> And you could always leave. [119:00] >> And I can always leave. Yeah. I mean, I [119:02] can get in my motorboat and take off. [119:04] Yeah. [119:04] >> Um or in the worst case, I can get on my [119:08] two-way radio or satellite phone and [119:10] call for help. [119:11] >> Did you ever think about just saying, [119:12] "Fuck it. Stay there forever." [119:14] >> Yeah. In the early years, I did think [119:16] about it. I thought about not pursuing [119:18] any kind of graduate degree, not [119:20] worrying about ever coming back to the [119:22] US or and I was really loving it there, [119:25] but then I realized my kids wanted a [119:28] wider experience. Um, and they it would [119:31] I didn't have the right to deprive them [119:32] of that. [119:32] >> So, you think if you were single, you [119:34] would have just integrated? [119:35] >> It's very possible. Yeah. I mean, um, [119:37] that would have been easy to do. [119:39] Although, I would have had to get become [119:41] much better at outdoor skills, right, [119:44] >> than I ever was. I mean, I would not [119:46] stand up to a pita's standards of [119:48] hunting and fishing and no woman would [119:50] have married me because they would have [119:52] starved to death. [119:54] >> Did you ever get better at those things? [119:56] >> Uh, not really. Um, no. You I have, [120:00] >> for one thing, you know, I I I like to [120:02] hunt. I used I started hunting when I [120:04] was like 10 years old, feeasant hunting, [120:06] dove hunting, and so I do enjoy that, [120:09] but um I've never given it the time to [120:13] become really good at it. Now, if I were [120:15] abandoned in the jungle, I probably [120:17] would, but it would take me a long time. [120:19] I mean, these guys are using bows and [120:21] arrows from the time they're two years [120:22] old. So, by the time they get to be [120:25] teenagers, they're perfect. They are [120:27] absolutely unmatchless in their skill. [120:29] And I've done little archery contests [120:31] before to see how good they are. And [120:33] it's just astounding. Um, so I would [120:36] have to spend, you know, many years [120:38] practicing to get as good as they are. [120:40] And then I in the meantime I would [120:42] starve to death because they're not [120:43] going to feed me. [120:45] >> How are they making their bows? Um [120:48] there's a couple of different kinds of [120:50] wood that they use, but there's one that [120:52] is it's a bright red wood and it's [120:55] called um peda food, uh piranha food, um [121:01] because it grows near the um edge of the [121:04] river and it drops flowers off the tree [121:07] into the river and the piranhas love to [121:08] eat those flowers. [121:10] >> Uh so if you see a lot of those flowers [121:12] in the water, probably not good to swim [121:13] there. Um, but they take a section of [121:16] the bark, a big section, you know, it [121:18] might be like u 4 in by 4 in or 6 in and [121:23] it's just a hard piece uh maybe um 8 ft [121:28] long and they bring that back and they [121:31] have a special tool and it could be wood [121:34] or bone or if they have a machete they [121:36] use that and they just start shaping it [121:38] until finally they get a bow that's [121:40] probably [121:42] um 2 in wide. [121:44] and an inch and a half thick and it's [121:47] taller than they are. It's about 7 feet [121:50] long. And um then they get the bark from [121:54] a tree, a certain kind of tree, and they [121:56] give that to and they they get it off in [121:58] strands. And so a man uh a brother or a [122:02] father or a husband will give it to [122:04] their closest woman relative and she [122:07] takes those strands and she makes a bow [122:09] string. So the bow represents man and [122:12] woman working together. A man can make [122:14] the wood. A woman makes the string. Then [122:16] they get the arrows. A man gets the [122:18] feathers. A man gets the shaft. The [122:19] woman makes the strings that tie [122:21] everything on. So she's the glue. Um and [122:25] once you get that that thing Yeah. [122:27] There's there's one right there. This [122:29] guy. U [122:32] those the arrows really long. [122:33] >> Yeah. Yeah. Those are the arrows. And [122:34] that these are fishing arrows. So [122:36] they're much longer, but actually [122:38] they're not both fishing arrows. One of [122:39] them is just a regular arrow. So their [122:40] arrows are quite long. And that thing is [122:44] a very powerful bow. And you can see the [122:46] thickness of the string [122:48] >> there. Um, so, um, [122:52] yeah, that's the bow, uh, [122:54] >> they eat a lot of monkeys. [122:56] >> Yeah, they eat a lot of monkeys. [122:57] >> Isn't that weird? [122:59] >> Um, no. I asked him once, I said, um, [123:02] do, um, do monkeys look like people? And [123:06] they say, no. Why would you ask that? I [123:08] said, they look like people to me. And [123:10] he said, "No, no, they get they're [123:11] covered in hair. You're not covered in [123:12] hair." You know, so I saw I I I went to [123:16] the Trans Amazon road. I was I was [123:18] traveling out all by myself, [123:20] hitchhiking, and I stayed with this [123:22] Brazilian uh and I said, "You have any [123:25] cold water?" He said, "And he had a [123:27] kerosene u refrigerator." And so I went [123:30] over and I opened it to get his cold [123:31] water and at the bottom it looked like [123:33] there were like four dead babies. And [123:36] I'm thinking, "Oh my god, what is that?" [123:38] I said, "What is this?" He said, "Oh, [123:40] it's just some monkeys. I skinned them." [123:41] You know, and a monkey that's been [123:44] skinned does look a lot more human. Uh, [123:47] and uh, but nobody thinks twice about [123:49] it, you know. Um, I said, "Are the [123:52] monkeys more like us or are they more [123:55] like dogs?" Oh, they're like dogs. [123:57] They're much more like dogs than they [123:58] are like us. So, they just don't see the [124:00] problem. [124:01] >> It's just food. [124:02] >> Yeah, it's just food. Um and uh so you [124:05] know and they love the the favorite part [124:07] of any animal is the brains. Boy [124:09] >> and one reason the brains are so good is [124:11] because brains are have a lot of [124:13] saturated fat and it's a great source of [124:16] saturated fat and if you don't know [124:17] otherwise [124:17] >> monkey brains [124:18] >> yeah they monkey brains. So the favorite [124:20] thing I I was talking to a woman one [124:22] time and I was I was making a sandwich. [124:25] I had brought in some lunch meat and [124:27] bread. I had just gotten there. It was [124:28] my first day there and so I had a little [124:30] bit enough to make a sandwich for that [124:31] night and I'm squirting mustard and you [124:35] know when you get to the end of the [124:36] mustard bottle and you're squeezing it [124:37] makes a sound like somebody who's got [124:41] diarrhea and um she says what is that [124:45] bird [ __ ] stuff you're eating and I said [124:48] well it's good it's mustard. You want to [124:50] try some? Oh no. And um she said look at [124:54] this bird [ __ ] He's eating birdshit. [124:56] And um then I look at her and she's [124:58] eating the brains out of a rat. Uh and [125:02] she's got this rat head and she's [125:04] sucking the brains out. And um they're [125:06] cooked of course, but uh she's sucking [125:09] the And I'm thinking this is a great [125:12] example for an introductory class in [125:14] anthropology. You know, how different we [125:17] perceive things. That's great to her. [125:19] This is great to me, but it grosses the [125:21] other one out. [125:22] >> That's wild. Mustard's disgusting. Rat [125:24] brain's great. [125:25] >> Yeah. And isn't there an issue with uh [125:29] eating primate brain tissue? Is there [125:31] can you get pron diseases? [125:33] >> Well, there are diseases uh that they [125:35] discovered in New Guinea from cannibals [125:36] who were eating human brains, right? [125:38] >> Um but I'm not aware of any diseases [125:42] that are passed by eating monkey brains [125:44] or or other kinds of brains. They'll eat [125:46] any animals brains. Um [125:49] >> so the pron diseases that you get are [125:51] from animals eating the same animal, [125:53] right? like mad cow disease is because [125:55] they serve cows literal brain and neural [125:58] tissue from other cows, [126:00] >> right? So, I'm not not an expert on [126:02] that, but um I do know that I've never [126:04] seen a case of them getting disease from [126:06] that. And the the superficial reading [126:08] that I've done on it suggests that [126:10] humans get it from eating human brains. [126:12] >> Interesting. So, they can eat deer [126:14] brains, [126:15] >> rat brains, no problem. [126:17] >> Right. So, the favorite part of any [126:19] animal is the head. So, if they bring me [126:21] a fish, they'll give me a fish. Um, they [126:24] like to trade fish for canned meat [126:26] because canned meat keeps. But, um, I [126:30] like fish cheeks, but my my wife hated [126:33] the fish heads. She didn't want the fish [126:34] heads around. So, they would be happy to [126:37] keep the fish heads, and they just make [126:38] a big stew of fish heads, and they eat [126:40] the brains and the eyeballs and [126:41] everything. Those are really tasty bits. [126:43] Um, [126:44] >> and probably rich in nutrients. [126:46] >> Yeah, they are rich in nutrients. They [126:47] know what they're doing. They love all [126:48] the internal organs. Yeah. It's so weird [126:50] how we've moved away from all that [126:52] stuff, right? [126:53] >> I mean, that's one of the things that [126:55] happens with wolves. The alpha in the [126:57] pack is the one that eats the liver, [126:59] >> right? [126:59] >> They they know something's going on. [127:01] There's a lot of nutrients in these [127:02] organ meats, and we've moved away from [127:04] that in a very strange way, right? [127:06] >> People are disgusted by the idea of [127:08] liver. [127:09] >> Yeah. So, you know, you go to some, if [127:11] you go to northern Brazil and you go to [127:12] one of these shuhas, Brazilian steak [127:14] restaurants, [127:16] >> um, love those. If you're in an everyday [127:19] person's, you're going to get a lot of [127:21] heart [127:22] >> and you're going to get liver, [127:23] >> kidney, [127:24] >> kidney, you're going to get all that [127:25] stuff. Um, you know, so um that is stuff [127:30] they they love to eat. [127:31] >> Sure. Well, a lot of cultures, Mexicans, [127:33] menudo, [127:35] >> it's got tripe in it and organ meat and [127:38] >> Right. And you know, my my [127:40] brother-in-law u deceased now, but he [127:43] was Mexican. And that's the first thing [127:45] he insisted that my sister learn how to [127:47] make in terms of true Mexican food was [127:49] menudo. And uh he wanted that every [127:52] Saturday and she loved to make it for [127:54] him. So u then she made this p so with [127:57] cow feet in it. Uh you know um and you [128:00] know got the hooves and everything in [128:02] the pole but um cooks all day. [128:05] >> I remember when I was a kid pickled [128:06] pig's feet was a big thing. [128:08] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so internal organs [128:11] are really good. You know, you you know [128:12] that a Brazilian chosia is authentic if [128:15] they serve chicken hearts, right? You [128:17] know, and and so if I go to one and they [128:19] don't have chicken hearts, I'm I'm quite [128:21] disappointed. [128:21] >> It's westernized. [128:22] >> Yeah. Yeah. [128:23] >> They're still great, but Yeah. I know [128:25] what you mean. [128:25] >> Yeah. [128:26] >> Yeah. I went to one when I was in [128:27] Brazil. It was awesome. [128:29] >> Oh, yeah. Those are [128:30] >> It's Brazilian fast food. [128:32] >> Yeah. And it is fast and it's amazing [128:34] food, too. It's like they know how to [128:35] eat. If you're in a rush, a chaser is [128:37] the best place to eat. Yeah. Because you [128:39] sit down, you flip that card over to [128:41] green, the food keeps 20 minutes later, [128:42] you're stuffed. [128:43] >> Exactly. Exactly. And you you ate much [128:46] more nutrition than having a McDonald's [128:48] Big Mac or something like that. [128:49] >> Sure. And it's all you can eat. [128:50] >> Yeah. [128:51] >> Yeah. It's awesome. [128:52] >> Yeah. I used to come out of the village [128:54] and uh go straight to one of those. I've [128:56] been out of the village for 6 months and [128:57] I was really hungry and I was coming out [128:59] on my motorcycle and the first one I saw [129:02] I pulled over and that's and I ate till [129:03] I could barely move. [129:04] >> Did you eat monkey when you were in the [129:06] jungle? [129:06] >> Yeah. Yeah. I I didn't eat the brains, [129:08] but they didn't offer them either [129:10] >> because that's the best part. So, they [129:12] would [129:12] >> Would you have if they offered you some? [129:14] >> Yeah, I would have. I would have. I've [129:16] tried a lot of stuff there. And when I [129:18] was doing my field experience in [129:20] southern Mexico in Chiapas, I I spent [129:22] some time with the Seltales, the Seltal [129:24] people, descendants of the Mayas. And um [129:28] you know, I eat I eat this stuff they [129:30] chew up and spit out and let ferment and [129:32] >> Oh, I've heard of that. That's that's a [129:35] beverage. Is that like an alcoholic [129:37] beverage? [129:37] >> Yeah. And so I was trying to fit in and [129:39] so they gave me just a little bit and [129:42] they said, "What'd you think?" And I I'm [129:44] trying to be this cool guy and I said I [129:47] loved it. I hated it, but I said I loved [129:49] it. And so they bring me a big bowl. [129:51] >> Oh. [129:52] >> And so [129:53] >> drinking people spit. [129:54] >> Uh that night I was up uh with um things [129:59] coming out of both ends all night long. [130:02] And the next morning my blood pressure [130:04] was 60 over 40. And I had to be uh flown [130:07] out. They had to get me on a mule and [130:09] get me out to the nearest airirstrip and [130:11] out. And uh but I did my bit. I was [130:14] accepted as a great great gringo for [130:16] eating this stuff, you know, for [130:17] drinking it. [130:18] >> What happened to you? [130:20] >> I Well, um [130:23] whatever it was, my body didn't like it. [130:25] Uh so it's [130:26] >> So is it just like the bacteria in it? [130:28] You think? [130:28] >> Uh it probably I think it had to be that [130:31] because it didn't gross me out. I didn't [130:32] like the taste of it, but it wasn't [130:34] grossing me out. And it was a happy [130:35] time. We had little ribbons and stuff. [130:37] We were having a festa and I was sitting [130:39] with the men at the table and [130:41] >> and their gut bacteria just knows how to [130:43] handle it. Is this it? Oh, [130:45] >> there you go, boy. [130:46] >> Yeah. There you go. [130:47] >> So, they just Oh, throw up. [130:50] >> It says that the human saliva like [130:52] creates the fermentation. [130:53] >> Yeah, that's right. [130:54] >> Oh, come on, people. [130:56] >> Isn't there a better way to get drunk? [130:58] Good lord. Well, if you want to get [131:00] drunk, um, and you want it bad enough, [131:02] there it is. [131:03] >> Oh, and I bet that stuff you're not [131:04] going to drink every day cuz it's so [131:06] disgusting. [131:07] >> Yeah. Well, [131:07] >> it's not going to become a problem. [131:09] >> Once it's fermented, nobody really [131:11] cares, you know, who's around that [131:13] culture. [131:13] >> Boy, [131:14] >> you know, but um boy, [131:16] >> what does the monkey taste like? [131:18] >> Well, there again, I don't have a [131:20] vocabulary to describe all these meats. [131:22] It's a It's a tough meat, but I pressure [131:24] it. I put it I put the [131:26] >> a crock pot. Yeah, I put it in a [131:28] pressure cooker over a fire. I take in a [131:30] pressure cooker, you know, not an [131:31] electric pressure cooker. Obviously, one [131:33] of these pressure cookers you can sit on [131:34] top of the fire and after I pressure it, [131:36] it's falling off the bone and I take the [131:39] meat off and I throw it in a bowl and I [131:41] put some manio meal on top of that and [131:43] then I cover it in Tabasco and uh it's [131:45] great. It's very filling and it tastes [131:47] really good. [131:48] >> Wow. Did you feel weird eating a monkey? [131:51] Um, when you see the monkey and you put [131:55] the little monkey body inside the [131:56] pressure cooker and it looks like a [131:58] baby, it doesn't look too good. But once [132:01] you open up the pressure cooker and it's [132:02] all cooked and the bones are separated [132:04] from the meat and then it's just meat [132:05] floating in there, you know, and and [132:08] when you're out in the jungle and you've [132:09] been out there long enough, um, just [132:11] about any kind of meat sounds pretty [132:13] good. [132:14] >> I worked with a group um called the [132:16] Wadi. I I actually wrote a 540 page [132:19] grammar of their language, co-wrote it. [132:21] And um they were cannibals up until [132:23] 1962. [132:25] >> Yo. [132:26] >> And they they had two they had endocan [132:29] cannibalism and exocanibalism. Exocism [132:32] was eating their enemies and [132:34] endocanibalism was eating their people. [132:36] And so if you die in the village at that [132:39] time up until 1962, [132:42] um they keep your body. They call all [132:45] the relatives. Your body might sit there [132:46] in the Amazon sun for 3 days and your [132:49] relatives come from all over and then [132:52] they cook you over a grill and uh slowly [132:56] they roast the body and then they cut it [132:59] into chunks and they eat them with like [133:01] little toothpicks and u they eat it till [133:04] everything's gone. They eat the bones, [133:06] they eat the brains, they eat [133:07] everything. [133:08] >> They eat human brains. [133:09] >> Yeah. And the purpose uh as best I've [133:12] been able to figure out anthropologists [133:14] have tried to answer this. So my answer [133:15] might not be theirs, but it's based on [133:17] interviews with the people is to give [133:19] your relatives eternal life because they [133:23] live in you and you're going to live in [133:24] somebody else. So you just continue [133:26] living. But exocnibalism, I kill a guy [133:29] in warfare. I'm going to eat him like an [133:31] animal. I just chop him up and grill him [133:33] and eat it and throw the bones off into [133:34] the forest. [133:35] >> Boy, [133:36] >> so that's totally different. [133:37] >> Some Native Americans practiced that. [133:40] >> Yeah. Um, [133:44] >> eating the brain though, wouldn't that [133:45] What is that disease? What is this [133:47] called? Yuckabrzfeld. Is that what it's [133:49] called? [133:49] >> Yeah, something like that. I should know [133:51] that. But [133:52] >> but it's mad cow disease essentially. [133:53] >> It's like that. Yeah. So, but they don't [133:57] eat people all the time. They eat dead [133:59] relatives. And if anybody's ever gotten [134:02] that disease, it's never been [134:03] registered. [134:04] >> That's crazy. But I mean, even if you're [134:07] eating dead relatives, you eat a dead [134:09] relative, I would imagine you can get [134:10] pron disease. [134:12] >> Yeah. But um it depends on how many die. [134:15] There's a whole etiquette about it. [134:16] You're never allowed to say that the [134:18] this tastes really good. You know, for [134:19] example, you can't say that. [134:20] >> You can't say delicious, Uncle Thomas. [134:23] Yummy. [134:23] >> And I've talked to I've talked to some [134:24] of the older men who have eaten their [134:26] dead [134:27] >> and they say, "Oh, the the babies taste [134:30] really good." But you can't you can't [134:31] say that [134:33] >> the babies taste really good. That is [134:35] rough. [134:36] >> It's like human deal. Uh but the the [134:40] Brazilian government and missionaries [134:42] put a stop to that in ' 62. [134:44] >> Good move. Why do they let Why do they [134:46] let it sit for 3 days before? [134:48] >> Because it takes that long for the [134:49] relatives to come because they might be [134:51] in other villages. So they've got to [134:52] send runners out to bring the whole [134:54] family. [134:54] >> Start rotting. [134:55] >> Yeah. It starts to smell pretty bad. And [134:57] there are a lot of stories about people [134:59] puking after every bite. Oh, [135:02] >> but these are people that can drink that [135:04] puke beer. [135:05] >> Yeah. Yeah. [135:05] >> Oh my god. [135:07] >> Yeah. [135:08] >> Oh. [135:09] >> So, [135:10] >> you realize cultural differences aren't [135:13] uh that superficial. [135:14] >> Well, it's also probably meat is [135:16] probably extremely valuable to them and [135:18] they just probably think, look, there's [135:19] no reason for this to go to waste when [135:21] it can sustain us. [135:22] >> It would be very interesting to go back [135:24] in time and see how the customs started. [135:27] uh they could have started out of hunger [135:29] and then you dress it up with some [135:30] religious beliefs [135:32] >> or the religious beliefs could have come [135:34] first and you started doing it. But [135:36] >> um they do have oral histories about it [135:39] but the oral histories [135:41] never say we we were short of meat so we [135:44] ate Joe. We ate our buddy. Um but they [135:47] do say um we want to help them live in [135:51] us and we will live in somebody else. So [135:53] that's this explanation you get. [135:55] >> Wow. or that I got. [135:57] >> Wow. Well, when you got there, a few [136:00] years after it was at [136:02] >> Yeah. I I didn't start working with them [136:04] until 1985. [136:05] >> Okay. [136:06] >> So, it was 20 something years ago, [136:07] >> but they still had stories about [136:09] >> Oh, yeah. They still had a lot of [136:10] stories about it. And, you know, anybody [136:12] over 30 had had done it, you know. [136:15] >> Is there any kind of cannibalism that [136:17] goes on in the Amazon still? [136:19] >> Probably, but none that I know of. Um, [136:22] but there are still some unconted tribes [136:25] and there are still tribes that behave [136:26] one way when foreigners around and [136:28] another way when they're not. [136:30] >> Well, [136:30] >> I have a friend, she she died last year, [136:33] but she was a missionary among those [136:35] people from the 50s. So, she remembers [136:39] the cannibalism and she told me, [136:42] although some anthropologists deny this, [136:44] but I think she knows them better than [136:45] any anthropologist ever been there, that [136:48] she said, "I think when nobody's around, [136:49] they still do that. [136:52] Yeah. [136:53] >> So, [136:53] >> I bet they do, too. [136:54] >> They don't have warfare to someone else. [136:56] They don't have warfare. [136:57] >> Not anymore. They did, but that's been [137:00] stopped. And they have they're isolated [137:02] from other groups that they used to be [137:04] enemies with. But there are still some [137:06] who believe the old time religion, you [137:09] know, and the old time religion says eat [137:11] your dead, [137:13] you know. So, that probably it's quite [137:16] possible that it happens. But what you [137:18] find is that since the 80s, most of the [137:22] groups that have regular contact with [137:23] the outside have undergone a very rapid [137:27] process of inculturation into Brazilian [137:30] society. M [137:33] >> so even among the Peta Hosnau in the in [137:36] the decade since I was there regularly I [137:39] see pictures of them because my ex-wife [137:41] still lives right next to them and she [137:44] she sends me short videos and pictures [137:46] of them when they come up to her little [137:49] wooden shack on the Trans Amazon Highway [137:51] by their river and they're dressing very [137:54] differently now and some of them are [137:56] speaking some Portuguese not not very [137:58] well but they're speaking some [137:59] Portuguese [138:00] >> and your ex-wife is still a missionary. [138:02] >> Yeah, she's still trying to convert [138:03] them. [138:04] >> No, no conversions. Um, they're not [138:07] going to convert. [138:08] >> Boy, you got to give it up to her for [138:09] having like stick tuitiveness. I mean, [138:13] that's uh that's really determined. [138:15] >> She is absolutely a New Testament first [138:19] century Christian in terms of her faith. [138:21] >> Wow. [138:22] >> And she doesn't deviate and she's not [138:23] afraid of anything. I mean, she h I [138:26] we've been in many life-threatening [138:28] situations and I don't tend to get [138:30] afraid and she definitely is not afraid. [138:32] Not ever. [138:33] >> So, is that because of her belief that [138:35] she believes that God is looking out for [138:37] her and if she dies, she's going to go [138:38] to heaven anyway? [138:39] >> Yeah. That the the constant a common [138:42] refrain among Christian missionaries is [138:45] I'm immortal until my task is done. [138:49] God will protect me until he's done with [138:51] me. And so, if he's not done with me, I [138:53] don't have to worry about it. And if he [138:54] is, great. [138:55] >> Wow. There's a lot of power in that, [138:58] too. I mean, how many people just live [138:59] in this constant state of existential [139:02] angst? [139:03] >> Yeah. That's something she's never had. [139:05] >> Wow. [139:05] >> She doesn't have that. [139:06] >> There's a lot of value to that. [139:08] >> It's what attracted me to her so much. [139:10] Besides the fact that she was really [139:11] cute, that that attracted me to her a [139:14] lot when we first [139:14] >> Were you bummed out when she wanted a [139:16] divorce because you lost your faith? [139:18] >> Well, by that time, we weren't getting [139:20] along that well because she's very anti [139:23] She's not anti-science per se, but she's [139:26] anti- [139:28] uh helicopter science. She feels that [139:31] too many people who do studies of [139:33] indigenous groups and languages come in [139:36] for a short time, go out and just speak [139:38] a lot of [ __ ] that nobody's ever [139:40] going to test. [139:41] >> And so she hates that. And she's seen it [139:42] happen with the PTA. I've seen it happen [139:44] with the PTA. I've seen I've seen a [139:46] couple of anthropologists and linguists [139:48] go in and do doctoral dissertations on [139:49] them that are like totally ridiculous. [139:52] But if I say something, I'm a gringo. [139:55] Um, and I'm jealous because it disagrees [139:57] with me. [139:58] >> Do you think that they do that because [140:00] no one's going to check and so they just [140:02] say, "I want to just write whatever I [140:04] want to write." [140:05] >> That does happen. That definitely [140:07] happens. It's also because people [140:10] realize that it sounds really good to go [140:11] study an indigenous culture or an [140:13] indigenous language. When you get there [140:14] and you find out this is so damn hard. I [140:17] had no I have no words to put in [140:20] >> how hard this is. [140:21] >> So they [ __ ] [140:22] >> Yeah. Because you know you you want to [140:25] say to a peda what is this? And so how [140:28] do you ask that? Well the phrase in [140:30] pahan is [140:33] but where do you get that phrase? You [140:35] can't ask somebody how to ask what is [140:37] this right [140:38] >> if you don't know the language. So you [140:40] have to watch them very carefully and [140:42] somebody might get something new or you [140:44] might even give them something new that [140:46] they've never seen. hoping somebody's [140:48] going to ask them what is this so you [140:49] can write it down and then test it and [140:51] that's how I got it. [140:52] >> And so now you're fluent in pira. [140:55] >> Yes. [140:55] >> So you can go and have a conversation [140:57] with them so you can explore some of [140:59] these more nuance subjects and do it in [141:02] their language. [141:03] >> Yes. [141:04] >> So you can kind of translate things in a [141:06] way that they're going to understand [141:07] what you're saying. [141:08] >> Yes. And that's what takes the most [141:10] practice. So when I first translated uh [141:12] the Gospel of Mark into Paha, I thought [141:15] I had done a marvelous job and I would [141:18] read bits out to the pita and they could [141:20] explain it to me and it seemed like they [141:21] were understanding it. But I used a [141:25] grammar that was largely based on [141:27] English. So when when I read to them [141:28] large sections, they were totally lost. [141:30] They couldn't understand it at all. And [141:32] what does that mean? It means I got it [141:34] wrong. It means that I haven't figured [141:36] out the language as well as I thought I [141:38] did. And that's very humbling when you [141:40] spent so many years trying to do it. So [141:42] I had to start from the ground up again. [141:46] And these are all, you know, before you [141:48] can learn a language, you have to murder [141:49] it. And before you can carry on a [141:52] conversation, you just feel like an [141:54] idiot for years. [141:56] >> And [141:58] for one thing, people who go in to do a [142:00] PhD or citation on a language like this [142:02] are going to take one to two years of [142:04] their life and that's it. And that's not [142:06] enough time. It takes a year to get [142:08] fluent in the language. And I know many [142:10] people who've written about many [142:11] different Amazonian languages who can't [142:14] speak a word of the language or speak [142:15] very little of it. They'll tell people [142:18] they speak it, but you take you go with [142:20] them and you realize they don't speak it [142:21] that well. So if you don't speak it that [142:23] well, how can you ask them to [142:25] distinguish subtle meaning differences? [142:28] You can't. M [142:29] >> and that means that a lot of you know [142:33] this kind of fieldwork is which is so [142:35] vital is not as reliable as we would [142:38] like to think it is. [142:40] >> That's unfortunate. [142:41] >> Yeah. [142:42] >> Especially if a young student is coming [142:44] along and they're interested in pursuing [142:46] it further and they're starting off with [142:48] some faulty assumptions. [142:51] >> Yes. And the other problem is people [142:53] learn a theory in graduate school and [142:57] they're they take it as their job of [142:59] their dissertation and this isn't [143:01] limited to just linguistics and [143:03] anthropology but they take it as the job [143:04] of their dissertation [143:06] to support that theory. So you know it's [143:10] like Paul Simon says a man sees what he [143:12] wants to hear and disregards the rest. [143:15] when you're when you're trying to do [143:16] theoretical research, uh field research [143:19] shouldn't be that theoretically [143:21] motivated. It should be basically [143:23] descriptive and then you can do the [143:24] theory later, but most people bring the [143:26] theory into it and um you can't totally [143:30] divorce those two. Um but [143:33] you see a fact. So, for example, I've [143:35] worked with Peter Ha and I'm asking for [143:37] a certain kind of data and they don't [143:39] give me what I wanted. And I thought, [143:43] this guy's this guy's not giving me what [143:44] I want. What's wrong with him? What am I [143:46] saying wrong? What is he stupid? You [143:48] know, and then as I learned to speak the [143:50] language better, I realized, oh, he's [143:52] giving me exactly what I needed, and I [143:54] was too stupid to know it. And so, [143:57] that's hard. You're the one working for [143:58] the PhD. He's just a hunter gatherer. [144:00] And it turns out he's at least as smart [144:02] as you are. And often he's able to know [144:04] what you need better than you do. And [144:06] that's another another part of the [144:08] humbling experience of doing field [144:10] research. [144:11] >> Wow. The amount of commitment that's [144:14] involved in going as deep as you went [144:16] with this is really crazy. [144:18] >> Yeah. I give demonstrations and you can [144:20] find some on the internet where I take a [144:23] language that I know nothing about and I [144:25] switch to paha which I know they know [144:27] nothing about and within 20 or 30 [144:29] minutes I'm able to explain to the [144:31] audience some basic facts about how [144:33] their grammar works and what their basic [144:35] vocabul you know a lot of basic [144:36] vocabulary and I do this to linguists [144:38] I've done it in front of as many as 500 [144:40] linguists at a time um and um then I [144:45] tell them that a lot of people think [144:46] this is magic this is really cool I [144:49] What you're seeing here is me working [144:51] for about an hour now. You just do that [144:53] every day for two years and you're in, [144:56] you know, and that's the part it's [144:58] intensive. I I get a headache when I do [145:00] these demonstrations because my [145:02] concentration is so hard and you know um [145:06] you miss obvious things and you say bad [145:08] things and um you're just [145:11] self-correcting all the time. You're [145:13] just constantly you start off this wide [145:14] and you're trying to get this narrow, [145:16] get down to this point of what it [145:18] actually means, what this and as you [145:20] work through that there there are no [145:22] shortcuts. There's no shortcut to doing [145:24] that. And you need to be well trained [145:26] and you need to be very committed and [145:28] you need to have a little bit of talent [145:30] and work really hard. And when people [145:33] see how it easy it looks and then they [145:36] try it, they realize they're seeing me [145:39] at 20 years down the road from when I [145:41] started. Um but yeah, there are methods [145:45] to use to learn a language where there's [145:47] no language in common. [145:49] >> But it's got to be very difficult to [145:52] achieve [145:54] a a fluent understanding of their [145:56] language and the way you did it from the [145:58] ground literally from starting from what [146:01] is this? How do you say that? And then [146:04] remembering it, piecing it together and [146:06] then you have to write it down. Then [146:07] you're writing it down, [146:08] >> right? [146:09] >> Oh my goodness. And then like imagine if [146:12] a guy like you didn't do that. Like how [146:14] many people are willing to do that? [146:16] Especially how many people that are, you [146:19] know, you're a linguist. You want to be [146:21] you you're you want to be a working [146:23] intellectual. You don't necessarily want [146:25] to get in malaria. You don't want to get [146:27] eaten by a jaguar. You don't want to [146:28] live in the jungle. [146:30] >> But so so there are people who would [146:32] like to spend that much time, but they [146:34] don't have the funding, [146:36] >> you know. So, you know, the the National [146:38] Science Foundation and the Brazilian [146:40] National Science Foundation and the [146:42] British equivalent of the National [146:44] Science Foundation have all funded my [146:46] research over the years, but the bulk of [146:49] my research was funded by being a [146:50] missionary. [146:52] >> Wow. [146:52] >> And so, I had all these years because [146:54] churches were supporting me. But today, [146:56] >> Well, did they ever ask, "How come you [146:58] haven't converted anybody yet?" [146:59] >> Well, they ask me that all the time. [147:01] I've had people I showed slides of the [147:03] pita to a church here in Texas in Dallas [147:07] and um the people started getting up and [147:10] leaving and I thought they were [147:12] interested. They gave me money to work [147:14] in these people and I said what's the [147:16] problem and they said you're no good at [147:18] all. And I said well what are you seeing [147:20] that you don't like? They said these [147:21] people are naked and if you're a [147:24] Christian missionary why haven't you [147:25] taught them to wear clothes? And I said [147:28] well they don't want to wear clothes. I [147:30] said, 'What in the Bible says you have [147:31] to wear clothes? They said, Adam saw [147:34] Eve's nakedness and he they were ashamed [147:36] of each other. You must wear clothes. [147:39] You're not even teaching them the basics [147:40] of Christianity. And I thought, yeah, I [147:43] guess I'm not. You know, I didn't real [147:45] That's not part of the basics of [147:46] Christianity for me. Um but um you know, [147:50] how do you tell a guy who wears a loin [147:51] cloth that it's three inches too short? [147:57] you know, something's peeking out there. [147:59] So, it's not they don't wear it for [148:01] modesty, you know, right? [148:02] >> They wear it to keep from sticks getting [148:04] poked in your penis, [148:05] >> right? [148:06] >> Uh and so modesty has nothing to do with [148:08] it. Why would you you know, to to the [148:11] average paha, a woman's breast is about [148:13] as erotic as an elbow. You know, you [148:16] know, you see a woman, she's nursing her [148:18] baby and then the baby stops nursing and [148:21] she's still talking to you and her her [148:22] tits hanging out and it doesn't mean [148:24] anything to her and after a while it [148:25] doesn't mean anything to you either. You [148:27] know what's the big deal? And so to get [148:30] across the idea that it may be clothes [148:32] that's causing this problem instead of [148:34] going naked which then eliminates the [148:36] problem of lust. Um I mean it's hard [148:40] concept for some churches but churches [148:42] tend to get very impatient. But then the [148:44] National Science Foundation, for [148:45] example, if I say, "I'm going to go [148:47] study language X and I need funding for [148:50] five years." Oh, no. We fund those and [148:52] that's a year's funding. Yeah, but [148:54] nobody who goes out for a year really [148:56] learns it that well. I need to learn it [148:58] a lot better. Oh, yeah. We'll go [148:59] somewhere else. We're not giving you the [149:01] money for that. [149:02] >> Oh, that's ridiculous. Is are there [149:04] really a lot of people that are willing [149:05] to do that kind of extensive work? [149:07] >> I wouldn't say a lot. Um, [149:08] >> but enough to to do it? Well, there's [149:10] 8,000 languages and um there's maybe [149:15] 2,000, 3,000, let's say 5,000 linguists [149:18] in the whole world and not and only a [149:21] small percentage of them want to do this [149:22] kind of work. The rest of them, most of [149:24] them want to do Chsky's kind of work [149:26] where you sit at your desk and you say [149:28] language has this property and it must [149:30] also have this property. And so the [149:33] rubber is never meeting the road, you [149:35] know. M [149:36] >> I mean you if you can do your field [149:37] research on database I shouldn't say [149:40] that cuz that's what my son does. He's [149:42] also a linguist and he grew up in an [149:44] Indian tribe and you know the paha and [149:46] he also did a dissertation on another [149:48] tribe that he learned to speak the [149:49] language but nowadays he goes through [149:51] databases and comes up with statistical [149:52] generalizations and it's pretty [149:55] interesting but um he'll tell me flat [149:57] out he said yeah I don't want to do that [149:59] fieldwork anymore that's really [150:00] demanding even though he grew up there. [150:02] So and that's the way most people are. [150:05] How many more cultures that have [150:07] completely different languages and [150:10] completely different sets of rules and [150:13] structure are out there that we're not [150:15] aware of? [150:17] >> Well, there when I was and back in the [150:20] 80s there used to say there's about [150:22] 5,000 languages. So 20 years later um or [150:25] 21 years later we're saying um or 31 [150:28] years later we're saying there are 8,000 [150:32] um languages die out at the rate of [150:34] about one every two weeks. So they're [150:36] dying and once they die we can never [150:39] recover that information. But also [150:41] languages are being born on a regular [150:44] basis because you talk like who you talk [150:47] with. So why are Portuguese and Spanish [150:49] separate languages? because you've got [150:52] the Eber River and you've got natural [150:54] divides between in that part of the [150:56] Iberian Peninsula and so they stop [150:58] talking to each other and so their [151:00] speech diverges. That's how Latin became [151:02] French and Romanian and [151:05] Germanic became English and so they stop [151:07] talking to each other. So as soon as [151:10] people stop talking their language [151:12] evolves and they have different [151:14] languages. So British English and [151:15] American English have evolved apart and [151:18] yet at the same time we have television [151:20] and movies and things that keeps them [151:22] sort of together. [151:24] >> Um but if you don't have media and you [151:28] don't have that then eventually they're [151:30] talking [151:31] they're not talking with each other at [151:32] all and they become different languages [151:35] and that's where most languages come [151:36] from. [151:37] >> Wow. And there's got to be a lot of [151:40] these tribes that aren't talking to each [151:42] other. And how many of these tribes have [151:44] been investigated? And how many people [151:46] have been embedded in the are there are [151:48] there tribes out there where there's no [151:49] one has ever examined the language? No [151:51] one's ever embedded themselves in their [151:53] culture. [151:55] >> There are tri there probably are over a [151:57] thousand where no one's gone there, but [151:59] there are there are a couple of thousand [152:01] where no scientist has gone there to [152:03] study their language or their culture. [152:05] >> Couple thousand. [152:06] >> Yeah, a couple thousand, I would say. [152:07] Wow. [152:08] >> If not more. And they probably have [152:10] completely different languages. [152:12] >> Yeah. You know, we're we're worried and [152:14] we should be about the disappearance of [152:16] certain bird species and all these other [152:19] kinds of species. And we should be [152:21] concerned about that, but we're not [152:23] concerned enough about the disappearance [152:25] of these languages and the and how the [152:28] new languages are arising. And why [152:30] should we be concerned? Well, for one [152:31] thing, every language is like a library. [152:34] It's a repository of information that is [152:37] lost when they switch to Portuguese [152:40] because Portuguese doesn't have all the [152:42] same knowledge embedded in it. It [152:43] doesn't have the same way of talking [152:44] about the world. There's a lot that's [152:46] missing. Every pahana, every child, [152:49] every woman, every man knows the name of [152:52] every species of plant and animal in [152:55] their environment. They will never just [152:57] say tree. Like I walked with the pita to [152:59] the jungle and they said, "This is what [153:02] we call this." And so I write it down. [153:04] What do you call it? Tree. What do you [153:06] call that over there? Tree. And what's [153:08] that over there? Tree. They said, you [153:10] just have one word for all these things. [153:12] But they're calling them by the species [153:13] name. And I'm thinking, well, I I told [153:16] them, I said, well, there's some [153:17] Americans who do know all the different [153:18] names, but I'm just not one of them. But [153:20] they find it hard to believe that any [153:22] American could get by without that [153:23] knowledge of their environment. Um, so [153:27] when that language goes, we've lost the [153:30] different. So, a friend of mine did a [153:31] study on how to how a group in the [153:33] Amazon classify birds and they don't [153:36] classify them based on their anatomy [153:38] like western science. They b they [153:41] classify them based on what they eat. [153:43] And so, if you know their [153:45] classification, you know what all these [153:46] birds eat and you know how to deal with [153:48] those birds to capture them or to follow [153:51] them. And when that language is gone, [153:53] that all that knowledge is gone. So [153:57] it's it's like you know the the Library [154:00] of Congress has been blown up or [154:01] something when you when you lose a [154:03] language and why do new languages come [154:05] into being? What are the conditions and [154:06] what does all this mean for us being [154:08] human beings? How do we know ourselves [154:10] better? How are we to understand our [154:12] species if we don't study all the [154:15] different exemplars of our species? And [154:17] and that's the challenge and that's what [154:20] keeps the work exciting. But it also is [154:23] what makes it a challenge because you [154:24] tell you tell uh a a really bright 25 [154:28] year old or 24 year old PhD student, [154:31] okay, now you have to take off to the [154:33] jungle for three years or four and [154:36] they're thinking I could get a job [154:38] without doing that. You know, I don't [154:40] need to go spend four years in the [154:41] jungle to get a job. And a you know, [154:43] professor is a pretty cushy job. It [154:45] doesn't pay well, but it's also it's not [154:47] like, you know, it's it's not like real [154:49] labor. And I told people tell me how [154:52] hard professors work. I said, 'Yeah, [154:53] well, you know, it does take a lot of [154:54] hours, but I'd rather do this than run a [154:56] jackhammer because I ran a jackhammer. [154:57] And I'll tell you, this is a lot easier [154:59] than running a jackhammer. So, um, [155:03] but you go off to the field and you [155:04] spend this time, ironically, [155:06] anthropologists seem more prepared to do [155:08] this than linguists. And the other [155:09] ironic thing is I know this is anecdote. [155:12] I know more anthropologists who speak [155:14] the language fluently than I know [155:16] linguists who speak the language [155:17] fluently. Which I I have to put down to [155:21] the pernitious influence of certain [155:23] theories and linguistics that makes [155:25] people think they don't have to learn a [155:26] language to know how it works. [155:29] >> And I tell people when you're going off [155:30] to do fieldwork, I did write a field [155:32] manual and I say the first six months [155:34] just work on learning the language. [155:36] Don't take many notes. you know, take [155:38] notes of words and stuff. So, I had a [155:40] goal where I wanted to learn 10 new [155:41] words a day and I kept a little spiral [155:44] notebook clip in my belt buckle and I [155:48] would walk around learning these things [155:49] and I would learn new words and write [155:50] those down and uh then I would spend the [155:53] evening memorizing those words and I [155:54] would try them out again the next day [155:56] and I try to make sentences with them [155:58] and when people start laughing at you, [155:59] you know that I didn't get that right. [156:01] And sometimes they like to teach you [156:02] dirty words, right? I mean, they think [156:04] that's hilarious. you know, the Alaska. [156:07] So, then I you know, you you want how do [156:09] you learn the words for genitals, for [156:11] example? That's kind of an embarrassing [156:13] thing if you stop and think about it. [156:15] So, I asked I started to ask the guy. I [156:17] said, "What do you call that?" You know, [156:18] pointed to his dick. And he he said, [156:21] and he calls he, you know, he says, "I'm [156:22] not going to tell you." But he calls a [156:23] little boy over who's naked. And he [156:25] shows me every part of his body. And he [156:26] said, "You call this this and this that [156:28] and this that." And then he says, "But [156:31] the names change once they start to grow [156:33] hair. [156:35] So penis as a boy is different from [156:37] penis as a man and vagina as a girl is [156:40] different from vagina as a woman. And so [156:43] you know how do you get those words? Um [156:46] you got to count on close friendships. [156:51] >> Well like I said at the beginning of [156:52] this man you've had a fascinating life. [156:54] You really have. It's very very [156:57] interesting and I I really appreciate [156:58] you sharing everything today. It was [157:00] really really fun. [157:02] >> Thank you very much for having me. [157:03] >> I enjoyed it. Uh Jamie pull up his book. [157:06] >> Um [157:08] >> well books I should say. Um this one [157:11] Daniel Everett don't sleep there are [157:14] snakes. [157:17] The life and language in the Amazon [157:19] jungle. Amazonian jungle. [157:21] >> That's what they say to each other each [157:23] night before they go to bed. [157:26] Don't sleep. There are snakes. [157:30] >> Amazing. Thank you very much. Really [157:32] appreciate it. Thank It was awesome. Bye [157:34] everybody.

Linguist Daniel Everett Rejects Universal Grammar After Amazon Studies

Detailed notes

[09:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=544s) Encounters with Predators: Jaguars and Poison Darts

[12:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=772s) Food Sharing and the Impact of Modern Dams

[15:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=951s) Ecological Crisis and the Struggle of Amazonian Tribes

[17:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1070s) The Initial Mission and Historical Accounts of the Pirahã Language

[22:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1345s) First Contact, Field Dynamics, and Jungle Survival

[29:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1766s) Unique Features of the Pirahã Language and the Recursion Debate

[32:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=1970s) The Backlash from Noam Chomsky and the Linguistic Establishment

[36:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=2204s) Deep History, *Homo erectus*, and the Oldest Wooden Structure

[41:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=2470s) Academic Character Assassination vs. Empirical Testing

[048:48] Noam Chomsky, Ego, and the Recursion Controversy

[053:40] Failed Conversion and the Pirahã Standard of Evidence

[055:08] Forest Beings, "Fastmouths," and the Fluidity of Identity

[059:52] Name Changes, Jaguar Attacks, and Identity Over Time

[01:04:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=3872s) Attempting to Convert the Pirahã with the Gospel of Luke

[01:07:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4020s) Loss of Faith and the Direct Empirical Standard

[01:09:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4173s) The "Ultimate Zen Masters" and Skepticism of Miracles

[01:12:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4360s) Historical Records, Flood Myths, and the Limits of Science

[01:17:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4676s) Religious Dogma vs. Scientific Progress

[01:19:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4771s) Religious Hypocrisy and the Hod Carrying Days

[01:22:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=4927s) The Pirahã: Happiness and the Subsistence Lifestyle

[01:24:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5080s) Pain, Resilience, and Death in the Jungle

[01:30:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5410s) Health, Diets, and the Intrusion of the Western World

[01:33:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5631s) [01:33:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5631s) The Beginnings of Everett's Deconversion

[01:34:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5656s) Losing Faith, Divorce, and Excommunication from Mission Life

[01:38:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=5888s) Morality, Conflict, and Banishment in Pirahã Culture

[01:42:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6151s) Navigating Jungle Perils and the Spirit World

[01:48:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6532s) Sensory Perception and Pattern Recognition in the Jungle

[01:51:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6709s) Navigation, Absolute Direction, and the Hospital Incident

[01:54:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=6886s) Alcohol, Health Concepts, and Cultural Perspectives on Mortality

[01:59:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7151s) Wilderness Skills and the Construction of Bows and Arrows

[02:02:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7374s) Monkey Consumption and Cultural Parallels

[02:04:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7451s) Cultural Perceptions of Food and Prion Diseases

[02:07:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7629s) Traditional Organ Meats and Brazilian Churrascarias

[02:09:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7745s) Jungle Delicacies, Fermented Saliva Beverages, and Illness

[02:12:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=7934s) Endocannibalism and Exocannibalism Among the Wariʼ

[02:16:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8175s) Amazonian Acculturation and Missionaries

[02:18:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8325s) Theological Conviction, Divorce, and "Helicopter Science"

[02:20:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8452s) Translating the Gospel and the Pitfalls of Academic Fieldwork

[02:26:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=8772s) Funding, Missionary Motives, and Cultural Misunderstandings

[02:30:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9005s) Language Birth, Death, and the Loss of Human Knowledge

[02:33:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9213s) Loss of Language, Academic Realities, and Fieldwork Technique

[02:36:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=9411s) Closing Remarks and Book Recommendation

中文简报

Reading summary

精炼阅读摘要

Detailed notes — zh

Source quotes

Source quotes

Original transcript

[36:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgKSK-YMOU&t=2204s) Deep History, Homo erectus, and the Oldest Wooden Structure