Steven Pinker: Enlightenment Now

[Retinend]

I'm not especially interested in debunking specific sections of his book. It seems to me that the central argument that 'the world is getting better' is just an insulting stupid premise and cannot possibly be summarized with such a broad statement. A lot of aspects of the current state of the world are incredibly precarious and due to our recent history and  global failure to react and plan for the future are very likely to come crashing down with tremendous cost to humanity and the environment. The subtext of the book is that Pinker thinks we should all be a lot more grateful and reverent for how things are and stop complaining. I don't get the feeling that Pinker was ever interested in finding out the truth, and instead only of finding stats to point to to support the position he had already arrived at.

It's absolutely accurate that the book (not even the subtext thereof) exults us to be a lot more grateful for what we have that we simply take for granted. That he wants us to complain less is a reasonable interpretation of the book, but I think it's uncharitable. There's so much more there.

As for your last point - we are all guilty of searching out information that supports our world view and Pinker would be the first to admit it (I say that since - for him - one of our "bad angels" to overcome is exactly this sort of "belief perseverance" cognitive bias). And against that, Pinker, BBC-like (so to speak) fastidiously weighs up either side of an issue before offering his own two cents.

Re "having no interest in finding the truth", I think that this habit of giving both sides their dues shows that, in fact, he does. And that's not to mention the mountains of evidence, usually numerical evidence, he amasses to defend his claims to truth. He never comes close to saying something like "I know the truth because I teach at Harvard", or "I know the truth because all smart people believe it?", or "I know the truth because I see the grim, unvarnished reality that the powers that be would rather wish you didn't" ....but rather "these are the pieces of evidence that I think support my belief".

This is all to say that... even if everything he believes (or rather, all the sources of evidence he uses) were 100% wrong I would still argue against you that he "has no interest in finding the truth". I agree with him that "the truth" is - conventionally enough - that Enlightenment search for numerically-based evidence that would settle a matter dispassionately.

[thugler]

It's absolutely accurate that the book (not even the subtext thereof) exults us to be a lot more grateful for what we have that we simply take for granted. That he wants us to complain less is a reasonable interpretation of the book, but I think it's uncharitable.

As for your last point - we are all guilty of searching out information that supports our world view and Pinker would be the first to admit it (I say that since - for him - one of our "bad angels" to overcome is exactly this sort of "belief perseverance" cognitive bias). Let he who is without cognitive bias cast the first stone.

That said, I don't know any other author who, in their prose, more fastidiously weighs up either side of an issue before offering his own 2 cents, and re "having no interest in finding the truth", I think that this habit of his shows that in fact he does. Not to mention the mountains of evidence, usually numerical evidence, he amasses to defend his claims to truth. 

And on that note, notice that in the book he never comes close to saying "I know the truth because I teach at Harvard", or "I know the truth because all smart people believe it", or "I know the truth because I see the grim, unvarnished reality that the powers that be would rather wish you didn't" ....but rather "these are the pieces of evidence that I think validate my belief".

This is all to say that... even if everything he believes (or rather, all the sources of evidence he uses) were 100% wrong I would still argue against you that he "has no interest in finding the truth".

He absolutely uses this stuff to rail against the younger generation for what he perceives to be complaining. It's not remotely uncharitable. He writes articles directly saying this drivel.  Utter fucking nonsense about how products previously considered luxury are now cheap and commonplace so that means it's better now.

Look at this fucking insufferable article https://www.newsweek.com/2020/03/13/ok-millennial-boomers-are-greatest-generation-history-1490819.html

"Here's one last piece of advice. Aim higher. Your passion for change seems to be mostly for yourselves—health insurance, child care, student loans, paid family leave."

No mention at all of the insane housing bubble that boomers are getting minted from.

He's also one of those people whining about cancel culture and calling it Orwellian. But Mr Pinker that is happening now and everything is 'better'. Suddenly it's a problem because it actually effects him in his privileged ivory tower. Everything he writes is effectively defence of neoliberal orthodoxy

[Retinend]

I don't know if Pinker would necessarily endorse that article written by Sam Hill at Newsweek, even if the article endorses him....

That your view is "uncharitable" is only my opinion. You, having read the book, think the message is "shut up, life is great, and stop complaining", and I, having read it, think that it is saying "aspire to solve problems with solutions, not despair". I don't know what the right word is, but let's just say it's a different judgement of character. It's not relevant to the content of the work.

Regarding luxury products becoming cheaper and more commonplace: Do you not consider it "better" that you won't have to shovel coal this winter in order to keep warm? Or that you don't have to worry about unrefrigerated food starting to rot within 48 hours of purchase? Or buying ink and paper to send a message? Or that you can engage in the wider world via the internet during a global pandemic lockdown? I won't belabour because you get it. And all that is not to say that "therefore everything is fine." That is a straw man that people often make of Pinker.

[thugler]

I don't know if Pinker would necessarily endorse that article written by Sam Hill at Newsweek

He tweeted it!

Pointing out how shit certain things are is not 'trying to solve problems with despair'. Anything that would actually alter or get rid of the system that creates these problems today Pinker would oppose. Instead his solutions are always technology and free markets. Neither of these will solve climate change on their own. Pinker seems mainly focuses on attacking young people for complaining, virtually his entire twitter feed consists of this and tweeting those sort of articles. He's not interested in changing things.

[Bernice]

Indeed, here's an unspeakably shit and actively pernicious article Pinker tweeted out yesterday which posits that recognition of the Native American genocide is a danger to western democracy and suggests that the USA is a democratic beacon of hope to the downtrodden people of (checks notes) the Netherlands.

I can't see how an awareness of Pinker's wider writings and pronouncements can lead anyone to a conclusion other than the "uncharitable" one of his critics: that he is primarily concerned with a handwaving defense of the status quo and an attack on those who would point out its deficiencies.

[Retinend]

I'm not a close follower of his tweets, I admit. These bad articles do influence how I see the man... I'll put him in his own Twitter List and see if I agree with you two going forward.

[jamiefairlie]

Compare life now to any point in history and it's unarguable that we have it better now. The reason people think it's not is that they have no experience of life then. Fairness may have decreased but overall life is better.

[Retinend]

here's an unspeakably shit and actively pernicious article Pinker tweeted out yesterday

OK... but I looked into this and he tweets this article with a severe qualification, directly calling the "crimes of European settlement" something that western nations needed to admit. He also refrains from writing anything positive about the article, in such a way that it is definitely "uncharitable" to presume he agrees with the worst kind of jingoist anti-revisionist sentiment about "bloodthirsty wild Indians" or whatever. I have to take my last comment back: this tweet does not change how I see the man. Sorry Thugler, but I'd have to see the context of him tweeting your article too.

But maybe that was a bad example you chose, Bernice. Let's see... Directly following this article he tweets an article about wildfire prevention.... then another about fusion power, an article about the psychology of political debates, another about declining poverty in China, then a Plato quote that jibes with his boosterish worldview....  some sort of fundraiser about "flipping the senate blue".... something about about AI pioneer Patrick Winston...  an article in defense of Dicky Dawkins.... disagreement with an article called "The Era of Rationality is Ending".... then something called  "The Worst of Times Amid the Best of Times", and so on and so on.

I mean, I can definitely imagine it would be annoying to read the Twitter feed of someone who is firmly in the pro-markets camp, if you are more of an anti-capitalist thinker. I'm not so naive as not to see that. For example, in the book he quotes Thomas Sowell very uncritically. Pinker is definitely what you would call a "neoliberal" in the Naomi Wolf sense. Call him boosterish, pro-capitalism, a centrist. He's definitely all those things.

I'm personally sort of on the fence about economic issues - I'm what you might call a "economic interventionist" - I think? It's not really my area - but that's all irrelevant because the thrust of the book we were originally talking about -  "Enlightenment Now"  is, in a nutshell, that "human reason can solve the problems of human suffering". His arguments are not only about the capitalist world. They could also apply to the upward trend of improvement in living conditions in communist Russia, 1922-1991, if one preferred.  Very little in the book is about markets per se - it sort of takes them for granted, as most of us take them for granted and work within them.

I am rambling now but I think it's important to say that I went into his feed expecting the worse and came out much relieved that, actually, he's just a centrist, pro-science, pro-expert kinda guy. I stand by my point about interpreting him generously because he's really not the bogey man you're both painting him as.

[QDRPHNC]

Compare life now to any point in history and it's unarguable that we have it better now. The reason people think it's not is that they have no experience of life then. Fairness may have decreased but overall life is better.

Currently reading Colin Wilson's Criminal History of Mankind, and have to say I agree with this.

[Retinend]

I'm surprised that book never got a mention in the book, correct me someone if I'm wrong. Never heard of until now - sounds good 👍

[thugler]

Compare life now to any point in history and it's unarguable that we have it better now. The reason people think it's not is that they have no experience of life then. Fairness may have decreased but overall life is better.

This is broadly true, but also not a sufficient description of things. It also ignores how close we are to a lot of things being terrible again. What Pinker advocates and defends based on this is dubious and misleading. It's always going to be an insufficient answer to just say 'things are better now', and the conclusions that can be drawn from this idea are often awful status quo protecting guff.

OK... but I looked into this and he tweets this article with a severe qualification, directly calling the "crimes of European settlement" something that western nations needed to admit. He also refrains from writing anything positive about the article, in such a way that it is definitely "uncharitable" to presume he agrees with the worst kind of jingoist anti-revisionist sentiment about "bloodthirsty wild Indians" or whatever. I have to take my last comment back: this tweet does not change how I see the man. Sorry Thugler, but I'd have to see the context of him tweeting your article too.

But maybe that was a bad example you chose, Bernice. Let's see... Directly following this article he tweets an article about wildfire prevention.... then another about fusion power, an article about the psychology of political debates, another about declining poverty in China, then a Plato quote that jibes with his boosterish worldview....  some sort of fundraiser about "flipping the senate blue".... something about about AI pioneer Patrick Winston...  an article in defense of Dicky Dawkins.... disagreement with an article called "The Era of Rationality is Ending".... then something called  "The Worst of Times Amid the Best of Times", and so on and so on.

I mean, I can definitely imagine it would be annoying to read the Twitter feed of someone who is firmly in the pro-markets camp, if you are more of an anti-capitalist thinker. I'm not so naive as not to see that. For example, in the book he quotes Thomas Sowell very uncritically. Pinker is definitely what you would call a "neoliberal" in the Naomi Wolf sense. Call him boosterish, pro-capitalism, a centrist. He's definitely all those things.

I'm personally sort of on the fence about economic issues - I'm what you might call a "economic interventionist" - I think? It's not really my area - but that's all irrelevant because the thrust of the book we were originally talking about -  "Enlightenment Now"  is, in a nutshell, that "human reason can solve the problems of human suffering". His arguments are not only about the capitalist world. They could also apply to the upward trend of improvement in living conditions in communist Russia, 1922-1991, if one preferred.  Very little in the book is about markets per se - it sort of takes them for granted, as most of us take them for granted and work within them.

I am rambling now but I think it's important to say that I went into his feed expecting the worse and came out much relieved that, actually, he's just a centrist, pro-science, pro-expert kinda guy. I stand by my point about interpreting him generously because he's really not the bogey man you're both painting him as.

I can accept your point that he's not the worst person in the world, and I wouldn't refer to him as such, but I think the way he writes and presents himself as oh so reasonable enlightenment thinker challenging the misconceptions of the youth can have a negative and debate narrowing result. You're absolutely right that he takes markets for granted, and he largely doesn't consider solutions which don't involve them remaining all important. From hearing him speak I find him extremely out of touch with regular people, when he's confronted with real problems people face today his instinct is to bombard with stats and effectively ignore them (because things are better than before right, so people are just being ungrateful and ignorant).

I'm of the view that unfettered capitalism in the sense that Pinker supports is incompatible with our getting to grips with climate change and other growing global issues of inequality and distribution of resources, and anyone advocating for this to continue in the face of the scale of the problem is going to be causing damage overall.

[Bernice]

Not to get sidelined by a detour into the minutiae of a single tweet, but it was never my contention that Pinker indulged in jingoistic sentiment about "bloodthirsty wild Indians", and I'm not quite sure where you've got that from. The article is retweeted with the comment "With democracy threatened, should we be stoking contempt & cynicism about liberal societies?" which I actually think gets very neatly to the critique of him (and that article). "Liberal democracy" is evoked as a shibboleth often to the exclusion of valid criticism - in this case meaning that a historical narrative foregrounding the native American genocide is a danger to democracy and freedom and, apparently, a friend to the gathering forces of authoritarianism.

You might point out that he doesn't explicitly endorse the (crappy, reactionary, intellectually sloppy) article, but he does retweet it and paraphrase its fundamental premise. Admittedly he does so as a question, admittedly his endorsement/agreement is inferred on my part, but it is not from nothing. It jibes with a reactionary streak I see elsewhere in his thought, where critiques of capitalism or the legacy of the enlightenment are met with an uncritical and shallow knee jerk dismissal.

As thugler says, he's not the worst guy in the world and, sure, most of his twitter feed is him retweeting articles about science etc. That's not really the point.  "Human reason can solve the problems of human suffering" is a nice take away from the book, but there are many sufferings that can be and have been instituted in the name of that very reason. I know it's only a pithy summary on your part, but what it lacks sort of points toward my issue with Pinker's brand of Conservative progressivism in general.

[jamiefairlie]

I think people get riled by him in a way that is similar to the Dawkins effect, they can both appear to be uncaring and unempathetic in their clinical analysis and conclusions.Doesn't mean they're wrong though.

[thugler]

I think people get riled by him in a way that is similar to the Dawkins effect, they can both appear to be uncaring and unempathetic in their clinical analysis and conclusions.Doesn't mean they're wrong though.

Dawkins supports the liberal democrats. Not wrong is he?

He's been wrong and dumb on many topics, mainly via twitter. Being a smart guy who knows a lot about evolutionary biology doesn't mean he is a perfect genius who cannot have foolish views on any subject. His views on Islam are often reactionary and pointlessly harsh and ill informed, catering to the large portion of his and other atheist blowhard's fan bases.

[Bernice]

I think people get riled by him in a way that is similar to the Dawkins effect, they can both appear to be uncaring and unempathetic in their clinical analysis and conclusions.Doesn't mean they're wrong though.

"Facts don't care about your feelings" is a slightly insulting response to the criticisms laid out in this thread.

[evilcommiedictator]

Child prostitutes on the Lolita Express never had it better

[jamiefairlie]

"Facts don't care about your feelings" is a slightly insulting response to the criticisms laid out in this thread.

I'd agree, good job nobody said those words then.

[jamiefairlie]

Dawkins supports the liberal democrats. Not wrong is he?

He's been wrong and dumb on many topics, mainly via twitter. Being a smart guy who knows a lot about evolutionary biology doesn't mean he is a perfect genius who cannot have foolish views on any subject. His views on Islam are often reactionary and pointlessly harsh and ill informed, catering to the large portion of his and other atheist blowhard's fan bases.

In your opinion, he'd disagree. Doesn't mean he's wrong though.

[Zetetic]

Please, tell me about penicillin again, and I'll try not think about how we are his penance for having made us.

[Zetetic]

Compare life now to any point in history

Nah.

The reason people think it's not is that they have no experience of life then.

And I don't think they're going to, and even if they did any effect probably wouldn't last very long.

[QDRPHNC]

Child prostitutes on the Lolita Express never had it better

Eh?

[Zetetic]

C H I L D   P R O S T I T U T E S   O N   T H E   L O L I T A   E X P R E S S   N E V E R   H A D   I T   B E T T E R

[QDRPHNC]

What

[evilcommiedictator]

We were just saying, how awesome it is that I'm helping Jeffery pay for his defence, and how lovely it is that his younger niece is so good at nude oil massages

[thugler]

In your opinion, he'd disagree. Doesn't mean he's wrong though.

No he's been factually inaccurate many times, usually when talking about topics he has no expertise in.

I don't understand your inclination to believe he's simply pumping out pure truth and were all just offended by him. He's just been plain wrong plenty of times. I'm happy to admit he's excellent when talking about evolutionary biology. Even when he talks about religion, his perspective is highly skewed and he doesn't have a good grasp of philosophical arguments, he basically doesn't think he has to do the reading because he's a special smart man. For him 'religion is not true!' trumps everything.

[Bernice]

I think you're offended by how smart he is.

[Retinend]

It's true his main subjects are evolutionary psychology and linguistics, but his books have branched out from there into social science (including historically and historically based social science) with the advent of The Blank Slate and that was two decades ago.

You think if you had two decades to study something professionally that you would have read a few books?

He's also an admitted novice at philosophy, though a committed atheist... so not very receptive to religious philosophy, if that's what you mean by philosophical argumenst.

Religion aside, you can see his humble attitude in how he addresses the reigning points of divergence from his peers in philosophy departments in "How The Mind Works": and I quote "beats me". 

He is, regarding philosophy, at least very familiar with two giants in philosophy: Daniel Dennett and Jerry Fodor, if you have heard his name - sort of obscure except to students of linguistics. But there's no need to defend him on his philosophical acuity because it is not his area. In "Enlightenment Now" he dares to attack Nietzsche at a refreshingly unphilosophical level. I will have to transcribe that part some time tomorrow. It really made me feel ashamed for my penchant for the great man. And that is a decidedly non-philosophical insight that I am more grateful for than any potential intellectual argument against his ideas.

[chveik]

there's nothing refreshing about his arguments, they're just the most tedious clichés you can read about Nietzsche.

[QDRPHNC]

there's nothing refreshing about his arguments, they're just the most tedious clichés you can read about Nietzsche.

Unless of course, you read Pinker's arguments first, then the other ones after that.

[chveik]

it wouldn't change anything