Tópico: DDV e Beeblebrox: uma dose de argumentos "anti-Pinker"

[Buckaroo Banzai]

DDV e Beeblebrox: uma dose de argumentos anti-Pinker

Modules, genes, and evolution[/size]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fb6BYeV9zIY" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Fb6BYeV9zIY</a>

The Almost Blank Slate: Making A Case For Human Nurture
by Henry D Schlinger Ph.D.

[...] Although I am reluctant to use the phrase “blank slate” for fear of being caricatured, I will venture to say that the human neonate’s cortex is a relative blank slate. And there is neurological evidence to support this contention. The well known pediatric neurologist, Harry Chugani and his colleagues use Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans, which measure glucose metabolism that occurs when neurons fire, to compare brain activity in newborns to that in older children and adults. In general, they find the most activity in the neonate’s brain occurs in the primary sensory and motor cortexes, thalamus, and brainstem, areas associated with the primitive reflexes seen in infants. Activity in the frontal association cortex and other cortical areas associated with “higher cortical and cognitive function” is relatively nonexistent. As the infant is exposed to more and more learning experiences, as a result of interacting with the social and nonsocial environments, areas of the cortex that mediate these behaviors show more activity.23 In addition to neurological data, anthropological and anatomical evidence corroborates a general- purpose model of the human cortex. Ernst Mayr explained it this way: There is much to indicate that physically the human brain reached its present capacity nearly 100,000 years ago, at a time when our ancestors were culturally still at a very primitive level. The brain of 100,000 years ago is the same brain that is now able to design computers. The highly specialized mental activities we see in humans today seem not to require an ad hoc selected brain structure. All the achievements of the human intellect were reached with brains not specifically selected for these tasks by the Darwinian process.24

From Genes To Behavior

The pathway from genes to behavior is anything but straightforward, thus rendering many genetic (and neurological) explanations of behavior overly simplistic. Genes do not code directly for any trait, especially behavior. Genes code for proteins, which constitute the entire body including the nervous system. One of the functions of the nervous system is behavior—the actions of muscles and glands in response to environmental stimulation. Perhaps more than any other phenotypic trait, behavior does not occur in a vacuum; the expression of behavior always depends on substantial environmental input. So, while the ultimate causes of an individual’s behavior occur in the evolutionary history of the species (as coded in the genes) and in that individual’s past experiences, both processes produce their effects first on the structure of the brain, the former mostly during prenatal development and the latter mostly after birth. It is important to note here that although evolutionary causation of structural or behavioral traits is coded in the genes, the causation is not in the genes. Likewise, although the causation of behavioral traits due to learning is coded somehow in the nervous system, the causation is not in the nervous system as some authors strongly imply.25 Because of the complex interactions between learning and inheritance, their relative contributions to behavior cannot be teased apart and certainly not by the heritability studies of behavior geneticists. Such studies, flawed as they are methodologically, can at best only estimate the correlation between questionable phenotypic differences in a population, such as differences in IQ scores, and genetic differences.26

[...]


Learning as a Parsimonious Explanation of Behavior

In many instances where evolutionary explanations are offered for human behavior, learning explanations are more parsimonious, which means they explain the same facts with fewer assumptions. Consider phobias. Sociobiologist E. O. Wilson claims that humans have a genetic aversion to snakes as evidenced by his contention that humans are much more likely to develop “fear and even full-blown phobias” to snakes than to guns, knives, and automobiles. For Wilson, this aversion to snakes is due to the “constant exposure through evolutionary time to the malign influence of snakes,” with “the repeated experience encoded by natural selection as a hereditary aversion and fascination.”29 First we must realize that not everyone who is bitten by a snake will learn to fear snakes, so we must have a science that can account for such individual differences. Nevertheless, if we assume that, in general, humans are more likely to develop fears and phobias to snakes than to cars or knives, the question we must ask is what most parsimoniously explains it. The sociobiological explanation is appealing and makes evolutionary sense, but a number of learning explanations offer a simpler account. For example, it is well documented in the Pavlovian conditioning literature that the tendency to acquire specific conditioned reflexes (in this case, fears) is determined by the relative amount of experience one has with the stimuli that produce the reflexes:

The more numerous the experiences with an object without adverse consequences, the longer it takes a fear to develop when there is an adverse consequence. For example, a typical person in our culture has countless experiences with cars and knives without any adverse consequences. If we are in an automobile accident or are cut by a knife, it is only one unpleasant experience in a sea of experiences with those objects that have not produced adverse consequences, so we are less likely to develop a fear. Learning theorists would say that the myriad non-aversive experiences with knives and cars have produced a latent inhibition with respect to developing conditioned emotional responses (i.e., fears) to them. That means that it would take relatively many more unpleasant or painful experiences before fear toward those objects would develop. Most of us, however, have very few, if any, direct experiences with snakes. If one of those rare experiences produces an adverse outcome (e.g., the snake bites us) it may be more likely to condition a fear quickly because there is no built-up reservoir of non-aversive experiences to counter it. So, the speed of learning may be due to those experiences rather than to a specific evolutionary predisposition. Fear of snakes can also be acquired by observing and modeling others’ extreme reactions to them (either in real life or in movies) and, relatedly, by being told about someone’s bad experience with a snake. Interestingly, Pavlovian learning is implicated in these types of learning as well.30

Finally, as Stuart Vyse of Connecticut College reminds us: “Because they are live animals, snakes are less predictable and controllable than objects such as cars or knives.

Being physically close to a knife is not risky, whereas being physically close to a snake can be.”31 Perhaps what we’ve inherited is a predisposition to learn fears quickly from such unpredictable and uncontrollable events. But we must learn the fear of snakes nonetheless. In the case of phobias, learning explanations are preferable to sociobiological explanations because they require fewer assumptions and because the principles to which they refer—latent inhibition and modeling—have been demonstrated in countless experiments. The evolutionary explanation requires many assumptions about the history of hominids and their relationship to snakes (not all of which, by the way, are dangerous).


The Denial of Learning Language

Often learning is flatly denied for behaviors that clearly have a strong learned component. In his book, The Language Instinct, for example, Pinker writes, in his usual self-assured manner: “First, let us do away with the folklore that parents teach their children language.” Pinker compares language to sitting, standing, and walking which, according to him, parents don’t teach but which children do anyway. Pinker also denies the role of imitation in language learning when he writes, “The very concept of imitation is suspect to begin with (if children are such general imitators why don’t they imitate their parents’ habit of sitting quietly in airplanes?)” and that, “normal children do not learn language by imitating their parents.”32 Statements such as these reveal no appreciation for the subtle power of learning, and a lack of knowledge of the sizeable body of experimental research on it. When linguists and psychologists repeat the tired rhetoric that parents don’t teach their children language, what they mean is that parents don’t intentionally teach their children how to talk, as if anyone ever suggested this. That does not mean, however, that children don’t learn language from parents. Just as learning theorists in the 1960s reanalyzed tapes of the so-called “non-directive” therapy sessions by the humanist psychotherapist Carl Rogers and discovered that he was actually reinforcing his clients’ positive self-statements (forcing Rogers to change the name of his approach to “client-centered”),33 psychologist Ernst Moerk exhaustively reanalyzed psychologist Roger Brown’s data on early language interactions between mothers and children and, in so doing, identified detailed instances of mothers prompting and reinforcing vocal imitations and shaping by successive approximations, among other behavioral processes.34 Such processes are subtle and difficult to identify if one’s view of reinforcement is a naive, simplistic one in which only praise for speaking appropriately counts. The principle of reinforcement derives from the more general Law of Effect, which states that behavior is determined by its consequences. Specifically, reinforcement is any consequence produced by a behavior that causes that behavior to occur again (or to be strengthened) under similar circumstances. Thus, reinforcement is defined by how it functions and, in a manner analogous to natural selection, reinforcement operates on (selects from) behavioral variation.


The Reinforcement of Babbling

A good example of the subtle role of reinforcement in language acquisition is babbling. Babbling in infants begins at around 4-6 months of age when the larynx descends into the throat. Instead of being able to breathe and drink simultaneously as babies can do before that time, they can now make all of the phonetic sounds found in all human languages. The question is how this amorphous sea of phonemes is transformed into the intelligible sounds of the parents’ language usually by the second year of life. Someone naive about learning theory might answer by saying that parents reinforce the sounds they like and ignore the sounds they don’t like. While most parents do respond more excitedly when their infants make sounds, especially recognizable ones, this probably only contributes to the continued strength of (i.e., reinforces) the infant’s efforts, not to the shaping of specific phonemes. Only a misunderstanding of reinforcement would lead one to claim that it plays no role in the acquisition and maintenance of infant (or even adult) speech. Although parents do intentionally reinforce verbal behavior in their children, the form of reinforcement that is responsible for shaping infant babbling into the recognizable phonemes of their native language is a more subtle form called automatic reinforcement.

Here’s how it works. Beginning before birth, infants hear countless hours of human chatter. When they begin to babble, some of the sounds they make (i.e., those of their native language) “sound good” and familiar in the sense that they match the sounds the infants have heard since before birth. The rest of the sounds they hear themselves utter are not familiar. Hearing themselves match familiar sounds reinforces those sounds “automatically,” in that no other person reinforces them, and so the infants keep making them. This is the main reason that deaf infants stop babbling. Automatic reinforcement also explains why the cadence and inflection of infant babbling sounds as if the infant is actually talking, something that drives parents crazy trying to understand what their babbling infants are saying (of course, they’re not saying anything). In this case, not only are the individual phonemes uttered by the infant automatically reinforced by their similarity to what the infant has heard, but so too is their cadence and inflection. The same phenomenon occurs when we take on colloquial expressions or accents of roommates or friends whom we like or admire, or when we find ourselves using trendy words and expressions. Other people don’t intentionally reinforce us for talking like them except in the usual ways by listening and responding. Hearing ourselves sound like our friends or using trendy words automatically reinforces the use of these words or expressions in the sense that we continue to use them. The process occurs without awareness, but it occurs nonetheless. In addition to this interpretation being parsimonious, it has experimental support.35


Learning “Real” Words

Detractors may claim that babbling is not real language, so we must provide other examples of how language is learned. Once the phonemic sounds and sound combinations of a child’s native language have been shaped by automatic reinforcement, parents are ready to hear “real” words, so when they hear “mama” or “dada” they respond excitedly, often repeating the word (both reactions functioning as reinforcement), and continue to do so as new words emerge. And, yes, they also use imitation to teach new words, as in, “Say spoon,” or “Can you say spoon?” and then responding, “Right, spoon.” When children use words to request things (e.g., food, comfort, relief from pain), parents provide those things. The parents’ responses are not necessary for children to learn how to say words— they learn that through imitation—but they are necessary for children to learn to use words. I’ve always been amazed that Chomsky and Pinker don’t seem to understand that, more than any other behavior, verbal behavior is social behavior, and in the absence of an environment where words and sentences do something for the speaker, they won’t occur. Following from Darwin, we must look for the function of behavior. For example, an infant raised all alone on a desert island with a tape player constantly playing human speech may eventually learn to say some words, but the words will never be used in a functional way because they won’t do anything for the child. The words won’t get the infant anything in the absence of other people (listeners) who know how to respond to the infant’s requests. The infant will be little more than a parrot. This explains a popular example that Chomskian linguists use to counter the suggestion that language is learned and to support the suggestion of a Language Acquisition Device (LAD), namely that the children of immigrants who spend their time in the streets playing with other children learn the language of their adoptive country faster than their parents who take classes. As anyone who ever took a foreign language class in school knows, learning a language in a classroom doesn’t teach many conversational skills, whereas being immersed in a language environment will teach conversational skills because the words you learn actually produce immediate and naturally reinforcing effects. Countless experiments have shown that various aspects of language, including grammar, can be acquired through operant and social learning. However, a longitudinal study by Betty Hart and Todd Risley demonstrates convincingly that parents’ language and interaction styles determine their children’s language and interaction styles.36 This study, and the dozens showing the operant learning of language, should put to rest once and for all the critics’ claims that children don’t learn language from their parents. In Hart and Risley’s study, language interactions between 42 American children, from birth to 2.5 years of age, and their families were observed in the home for one hour a month. Not only was the children’s amount of talking shown to be directly related to the parents’ amount of talking, but 86-98% of the actual words in the child’s vocabulary were also in the parents’ vocabulary. There were strong correlations between what the parents actually did during interactions with their language-learning children and the children’s language development. For example, the children’s rate of vocabulary growth was a direct function of how many different nouns and modifiers they heard and how much the parents reinforced the children’s utterances either with approval or by repeating what the children said. These relationships held up at age 3, as they also did with the children’s performances on standardized achievement and intelligence tests (i.e., IQ scores) when they were nine years old. In addition, the data also revealed slower vocabulary growth rates when parents initiated verbal interactions (v. reinforcing the child for initiating) or issued imperatives (v. questions or choices) or outright prohibitions (punishment) for speaking. The data from the Hart and Risley study are real data from real parents teaching their children a real language, not the idealized sentences or rationalist musings of Chomskian linguists, and they offer a compelling picture of the enormous impact learning has on language acquisition.

Finally, Pinker’s claim that children do not learn by imitating is simply wrong, as Claire Poulson and her colleagues, among numerous others, have shown.37 True, children do not imitate everything their parents say or do. But when imitating produces reinforcing consequences, children imitate—and so do adults. Anyone who has been around a young child knows that they imitate much of what they hear and see, and children and adults use imitation and modeling as the main way to learn words and simple sentences in the first place.

[...]

http://www.thepsychologicalchannel.com/blogs/blog4.php/2008/08/05/1-the-almost-blank-slate-making-a-case-f

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Trechos de um texto que não achei muito bom, mas ainda me parece dar umas alfinetadas válidas:

THE NEW YORKER
November 22, 2002

"WHAT COMES NATURALLY"

by LOUIS MENAND

[...] Pinker doesn't care much for art, though. When he does care for something—cognitive science, for example—he is all in favor of training people to do it, even though, as he admits, many of the methods and assumptions of modern science are counter-intuitive. The fact that innate mathematical ability is still in the Stone Age distresses him; he has fewer problems with Stone Age sex drives. He objects to using education "to instill desirable attitudes toward the environment, gender, sexuality, and ethnic diversity"; but he insists that "the obvious cure for the tragic shortcomings of human intuition in a high-tech world is education." He thinks that we should be teaching economics, evolutionary biology, and probability and statistics, even if we have to stop teaching literature and the classics. It's O.K. to rewire people's "natural" sense of a just price or the movement of a subatomic particle, in other words, but it's a waste of time to tinker with their untutored notions of gender difference.

Having it both ways is an irritating feature of "The Blank Slate." Pinker can write, in refutation of the scarecrow theory of violent behavior, "The sad fact is that despite the repeated assurances that 'we know the conditions that breed violence,' we barely have a clue," and then, a few pages later, "It is not surprising, then, that when African American teenagers are taken out of underclass neighborhoods they are no more violent or delinquent than white teenagers." Well, that should give us one clue. He sums the matter up: "With violence, as with so many other concerns, human nature is the problem, but human nature is also the solution." This is just another way of saying that it is in human nature to socialize and to be socialized, which is, pragmatically, exactly the view of the "intellectuals."

The insistence on deprecating the efficacy of socialization leads Pinker into absurdities that he handles with a blitheness that would be charming if his self-assurance were not so overdeveloped. He argues, for example, that democracy, the rule of law, and women's reproductive freedom are all products of evolution. The Founding Fathers understood that the ideas of power sharing and individual rights are grounded in human nature. And he quotes, with approval, the claim of two evolutionary psychologists that the "evolutionary calculus" explains why women evolved "to exert control over their own sexuality, over the terms of their relationships, and over the choice of which men are to be the fathers of their children." Now, democracy, individual rights, and women's sexual autonomy are concepts almost nowhere to be found, even in the West, before the eighteenth century. Either human beings spent ten thousand years denying their own nature by slavishly obeying the whims of the rich and powerful, cheerfully burning heretics at the stake, and arranging their daughters' marriages (which would imply a pretty effective system of socialization), or modern liberal society is largely a social construction. Which hypothesis seems more plausible?

[...]

Here Pinker relies on a 1998 book called "The Nurture Assumption," by Judith Rich Harris, which has been the object of some controversy in the field of developmental psychology. Harris claimed that "shared family environments"—that is, parents—have little or no effect on a child's personality. (Strictly speaking, she claimed that parenting does not account for the variation in differences in personality, which is what genetic science measures.) Biological siblings reared together are no more alike, or less different, than biological siblings reared in separate families. Half of personality, Harris argued, is the product of genes, and half is the product of what she called the "unique environment"—that is, the particular experiences of the individual child. Harris suggested that children's peers might be the principal source of this environmental input. This is distinctly not Clinton-era thinking. It was Hillary Clinton, after all, who sent parents of older children into a depression by announcing that personality is shaped in the first three years of life. If you missed those bedtime stories, there was apparently no way to make it up. Harris's theory makes nonsense of this anxiety, as it does of virtually all expert child-rearing advice, which Pinker calls "flapdoodle."

What is personality, though? The answer turns out to be quite specific. The new sciences of human nature have discovered that personality has exactly five dimensions: people are, in varying degrees, either open to experience or incurious, conscientious or undirected, extroverted or introverted, agreeable or antagonistic, and neurotic or stable. (This is known in the literature as the Five-Factor Model, or FFM. The five dimensions are referred to by the acronym OCEAN.) All five attributes are partly heritable, and they are what behavioral geneticists look to for a definition of personality. It seems that there is no need for finer tuning, because OCEAN accounts for everything. "Most of the 18,000 adjectives for personality traits in an unabridged dictionary can be tied to one of these five dimensions," as Pinker explains.

When Pinker and Harris say that parents do not affect their children's personalities, therefore, they mean that parents cannot make a fretful child into a serene adult. It's irrelevant to them that parents can make their children into opera buffs, water-skiers, food connoisseurs, bilingual speakers, painters, trumpet players, and churchgoers—that parents have the power to introduce their children to the whole supra-biological realm—for the fundamental reason that science cannot comprehend what it cannot measure.

Science can measure anxiety. This is not just because people will report themselves, in surveys, to be more or less anxious; it is also because a genetic basis for anxiety has been identified. People with a shorter version of a stretch of the DNA that inhibits the serotonin-transporter gene on chromosome 17 are more likely to be anxious. That chronic anxiety is biological—that it is not caused solely by circumstance—is shown by the fact that medication containing a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (that is, an anti-depressant) can relieve it. (Would medication count as nurture or as nature?) But that's just the biology. The psychology is everything that the organism does to cope with its biology. Innately anxious people develop all kinds of strategies for overcoming, disguising, avoiding, repressing, and, sometimes, exploiting their tendency to nervousness. These strategies are acquired—people aren't born with them—and they are constructed from elements that the environment provides. The mind can work only with what it knows, and one of the things it knows is parents, who often become major players in the psychic drama of anxiety maintenance. The mere fact of having "the gene for anxiety" determines nothing, which is why some anxious people become opera buffs, some become water-skiers, and some just sit and stare out the window, brooding on the fact that their parents did not read them enough bedtime stories. These people are unlikely to be relieved by learning that cognitive science has determined that bedtime stories are overrated.

An obsession with the mean point of the bell curve has sometimes led scientists to forget that the "average person" is a mathematical construct, corresponding to no actual human being. It represents, in many cases, a kind of lowest common denominator. Yet scientists like Pinker treat it as a universal species norm. The classic case of this kind of apotheosis of the average is the kind of study, reported in the Science Times, in which the ideal female face is constructed by blending all the features identified by people as most beautiful. The result is a homogenized, anodyne image with no aesthetic or erotic charge at all, far less alluring than many of the "outlying" variants used to derive it. Pinker's evolutionary theory of beauty has the same effect. "An eye for beauty," he says, "locks onto faces that show signs of health and fertility—just as one would predict if it had evolved to help the beholder find the fittest mate." Elsewhere, he explains that "the study of evolutionary aesthetics is also documenting the features that make a face or body beautiful. The prized lineaments are those that signal health, vigor, and fertility." But if this were all the eye required the girl in the Pepsodent commercial would be the most desirable woman on earth. And the only person who thinks that is the guy in the Pepsodent commercial. People don't go for faces that deviate from the "ideal" because they can't have the ideal. They go for them because the deviation is what makes them attractive. [...]

It seems that aesthetics, unlike cognitive science, is not a body of knowledge worth acquiring. Pinker thinks that any moral sophistication derived from exposure to élite art can be instilled much more effectively by "middlebrow realistic fiction or traditional education." So if people want to hang a painting of a red barn or a weeping clown above their couch, he says, "it's none of our damn business." The preference for red-barn and weeping-clown paintings has been naturally selected. In fact, the "universality of basic visual tastes" has been proved, Pinker points out, by the artists Vitaly Komar and Alexander Melamid, who, in 1993, surveyed people's artistic preferences for color, subject matter, style, and so on. They proceeded to make a painting that incorporated all of the top-rated elements: it was a nineteenth-century realist landscape featuring children, deer, and the figure of George Washington. Pinker notes that the painting exemplifies "the kind of landscape that had been characterized as optimal for our species by researchers in evolutionary aesthetics." [...]


http://www.hereinstead.com/sys-tmpl/bmenadonpinker/

O quadro em questão:




O autor segue então defendendo arte pós-modernista, o que nem lembro como tentaram fazer, mas provavelmente não concordei da primeira vez que li e não vou ler de novo agora.

Eu até acho que esse se aproxima de ser um ponto a favor de Pinker criticado nesse texto, embora eu tenha achado engraçado isso de uma pintura otimizada por "estética evolutiva".




Não diretamente lidando com Pinker, mas relevante ao tema:

Are you a rebel and a risk taker? Then maybe you're the last born in the family. More conscientious, adhering to the status quo and smarter than your siblings? Must be a first born. Does birth order determine your personality? We talk with U.C. Berkeley scholar Frank Sulloway who says birth order matters.

<a href="http://beemp3.com/player/player.swf?playerID=1&amp;bg=0xCDDFF3&amp;leftbg=0x357DCE&amp;lefticon=0xF2F2F2&amp;rightbg=0x64F051&amp;rightbghover=0x1BAD07&amp;righticon=0xF2F2F2&amp;righticonhover=0xFFFFFF&amp;text=0x357DCE&amp;slider=0x357DCE&amp;track=0xFFFFFF&amp;border=0xFFFFFF&amp;loader=0xAF2910&amp;soundFile=http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/151/510075/128575292/KQED_128575292.mp3" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://beemp3.com/player/player.swf?playerID=1&amp;bg=0xCDDFF3&amp;leftbg=0x357DCE&amp;lefticon=0xF2F2F2&amp;rightbg=0x64F051&amp;rightbghover=0x1BAD07&amp;righticon=0xF2F2F2&amp;righticonhover=0xFFFFFF&amp;text=0x357DCE&amp;slider=0x357DCE&amp;track=0xFFFFFF&amp;border=0xFFFFFF&amp;loader=0xAF2910&amp;soundFile=http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/151/510075/128575292/KQED_128575292.mp3</a>

http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/151/510075/128575292/KQED_128575292.mp3

Malcolm Gladwell doesn’t like Gifted and Talented Education Programs. And he doesn’t believe that innate ability can fully explain superstar hockey players or billionaire software giants. In this podcast, we listen in on a conversation between Robert and Malcolm recorded at the 92nd St Y. Robert asks Malcolm if he’s a “genius denier,” and Malcolm asks Robert if he’s uncomfortable with the power of love, as they duke it out over questions of luck, talent, passion, and success.

<a href="http://beemp3.com/player/player.swf?playerID=1&amp;bg=0xCDDFF3&amp;leftbg=0x357DCE&amp;lefticon=0xF2F2F2&amp;rightbg=0x64F051&amp;rightbghover=0x1BAD07&amp;righticon=0xF2F2F2&amp;righticonhover=0xFFFFFF&amp;text=0x357DCE&amp;slider=0x357DCE&amp;track=0xFFFFFF&amp;border=0xFFFFFF&amp;loader=0xAF2910&amp;soundFile=http://feeds.wnyc.org/~r/radiolab/~5/sRugpW6dUj4/radiolab_podcast10success.mp3" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://beemp3.com/player/player.swf?playerID=1&amp;bg=0xCDDFF3&amp;leftbg=0x357DCE&amp;lefticon=0xF2F2F2&amp;rightbg=0x64F051&amp;rightbghover=0x1BAD07&amp;righticon=0xF2F2F2&amp;righticonhover=0xFFFFFF&amp;text=0x357DCE&amp;slider=0x357DCE&amp;track=0xFFFFFF&amp;border=0xFFFFFF&amp;loader=0xAF2910&amp;soundFile=http://feeds.wnyc.org/~r/radiolab/~5/sRugpW6dUj4/radiolab_podcast10success.mp3</a>

Download MP3
http://feeds.wnyc.org/~r/radiolab/~5/sRugpW6dUj4/radiolab_podcast10success.mp3

[Panthera]

Desculpe perguntar, mas essa é continuação de uma discussão de outro tópico? Qual?

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Não, só uma coletânea de textos/multimídia de visões que destoam um pouco da versão Pinkeriana mais popularizada dos fatos.