I have to say the when Elon Musk correctly schooled him on general AI threats it certainly raised my eyebrows that maybe Pinker wasn't as clever I believed, as the more simple among us could have appreciated the point Elon made in a tweet.
Why is it that so many people seem to call Musk by his first name in written discourse? Smells of fanboy/girlism and certainly doesn't add to objectivity. The point being that he can say pretty much anything he wants and gets away with it because he's "Elon".
Because Elon is, to American ears, a unique-sounding name with a hint of Bond Villan whereas Musk is a strong smell and is the sort of name a Hollywood hack would give an out-of-touch salesman archetype in a satire.
As a rule, I use a person's last name when discussing writings, research, and general academic expression. I make an exception in Elon's case because, as another commenter implied, the word "Musk" in English carries some unfortunate connotations.
That's a very American thing. You will hear a lot of people talking about "Angelina" doing something or "Michelle" (Obama). It always sounds weird to me but people do it.
Just want to point out that there are no actual experts on AI threat, just people with very strong opinions. The most expertise that anybody can possibly possess with regard to AI threat is roughly the kind of expertise that carriage makers had about cars at the dawn of the automobile age.
But even non-carriage makers did not expect any carriages to spontaneously sprout an engine and become an automobile. To date, I don't believe that any have.
Nassim Taleb is not really Pinker’s intellectual equal. As someone who has read “Better Angels”, I don’t think it’s even up for debate that the world is dramatically less violent today than it’s ever been (the main premise of the book). To prove his point, Pinker mercilessly bludgeons the reader with hard facts, again, again, and again, until even the most steadfast contrarian starts to nod in agreement.
Agreed Taleb is not his equal is his superior.
Having read all Taleb’s books and a few Pinker books, i have learnt far more from Taleb. Taleb hails from the Middle East so is probably too pessimistic and cynical ( but hilarious). Pinker hails from affluence and comfort so is too rosy. Pinker has no deep insights he just cherry picks facts and presents them eloquently. Taleb is a much deeper thinker so his thoughts are far more interesting to me. His intellect is way above Pinker’s level, but not as powerful as Wittgenstein (who Taleb admires) my favourite philosopher
I'm curious about this. Fooled by randomness and Black Swan are the books that have had the biggest impact in my view of the world. You think if I enjoy reading Taleb I probably won't like Pinker's style?
"His many fans highlight the effect of Taleb's thinking as they speak like Renfield discussing Count Dracula:
”excellent; it's a must read ... I'll refrain from demonstrating my foolishness and ignorance by trying to interpret any of them in this forum.”
“Those who understand the book will refrain from summarizing its message.”
They sound like a cult of scared guru worshipers."
Taleb has an annoying habit of attacking the people as much as the idea he's criticizing. If you don't agree with Taleb you're suddenly a "charlatan". And if you don't take his hardline stance on GMOs you're a shill for Monsanto. I've read almost everything of Taleb's by the way, but I find his inability to accept criticism annoying. Seeing how he behaves on twitter has made me admire him less.
I agree he is arrogant over sensitive and a bit childish, so are manny other brilliant people eg Steve Jobs. I’m not saying he’s perfect just saying that his work is far more interesting to me than Pinker’s. It’s apparent to me that humans have advanced dramatically in mnay ways hence I learnt nothing from Pinker, unlike from Fooled by Randomness and Anti Fragile which influenced me significantly (not so much Skin in the Game). Pinker glosses over tremendous Global problems no where near being resolved.
Generally speaking, I have found Pinker's writings to be excellent (even when I have quibbles here and there). This latest book, however, seems rushed and an attempt to ride on his own coattails.
Still, it's odd to me that so many reviews of this book apparently go beyond simply pointing out the flaws of the book in order to take a swipe at the man.
Pinker is just a perfect example of a new breed of popular "public intellectuals" who are lazy, boring and non-skeptical thinkers, who love to criticise ideas they are too lazy to study and understand.
Sure. Pretty much all of Pinker's books' reviews, written by better-educated people who've actually bothered reading what he so gleefully critiques. Here's a selection:
Also, I had the dubious pleasure of attending one of Pinker's talks. Let's just say that him coming off as unintelligent is an understatement. He seemed to be both completely unfamiliar with the very subject he had written about as well as incapable of forming any kind of interesting or novel insight about it. He just paraphrases well-worn anti-intellectual sentiments using what appears to the untrained ear as intellectual jargon. His audience in that particular talk happened to be mostly university professors, all of whom did their best not to laugh, as he was clearly the least-informed person in the quite-large room about the very subject on which he'd written a best-selling book!
My insults about this joke-of-an-intellectual are a much-watered-down version of how he's perceived by people who actually know the subject matter. Of course, these are the very people he critiques for this very reason. He can present them as his "opponents" and thus discard their actually-informed criticism as ideological opposition, saving him the trouble of actually studying the material.
I guess it's a subjective point but I think implying he's simply dumb or lazy is being uncharitable. I've also gone to a talk by Pinker and came away from it frustrated, but also deeply impressed. "The Language Instinct" is a brilliant example of science popularization and he speaks quite eloquently, I thought.
That said, I do think that the further he strays from neuroscience and psychology, the more overconfident and shaky his claims seem to get. You could call it the Jared Diamond fallacy, a kind of high-brow cousin of the Dunning Kruger effect: scientists trained to be interdisciplinary who think that this training makes them competent historians as well. It doesn't.
I've been thinking about writing a rebuttal to Pinker's main claims in this book and Better Angels but I think the job has already been done by a combo of this review from the humanities realm (David Bell is a superb historian of the French Enlightenment) and the issues raised by people well-versed in statistics, like Taleb, who I personally find deeply unappealing as a thinker but who nevertheless is clearly skilled at this sort of critique.
The Language Instinct is a book he wrote 25 years ago, back when he bothered writing about stuff he actually had a clue about.
Jared Diamond, with all his faults, is head and shoulders above Pinker. He, too, provides an overarching, overconfident narrative, but at least he more-or-less knows what he's talking about and, most importantly, has something interesting to say. It is not surprising that historians at least consider his thesis something to think about, while Pinker is considered a sad joke, and is more talked-about as a phenomenon (of the uneducated popular intellectual) than for the inanities he spews.
Pinker may be out of his depth when it comes to the bigger concepts but within the narrow constraints of materialism the data is incontrovertible. Pointing to a review written by Gray of Pinker's work when Gray is _explicitly_ in the camp which opposes the Polyannas of progress is bad sportsmanship.
What you should be asking yourself is how we can synthesise a worldview that incorporates both optimists and pessimists. I wholeheartedly agree that more nuance is needed but I also think that Pinker has done an excellent job at framing one side of the debate. The fact that he thinks there is only one side of the debate only means that he has as hard a time as the rest of us taking in the enormous sweep of human history and science.
I very much doubt you could write a decent rebuttal of either of his last two works.
It's not about pessimists vs. optimists, but about the fact that 1. Pinker has obviously not read many of the works he criticises, and 2. he displays no ability at self-skepticism or any other quality that makes for interesting intellectual writing. His texts are thinly veiled propaganda (in his talks the veil is completely gone; they are long rants against intellectuals he clearly has not read) of the most boooooring kind. It's OK to have an opinion; it's not OK not to seriously study what it is that you're writing about (say, the Enlightenment), and it's not OK to write boring propaganda yet present yourself as a profound intellectual. He is shallow, unoriginal, boring and almost criminally unknowledgable.
If you want to refute Pinker's arguments, you don't have to ramble on exaggeration and misrepresentation of actual facts, you just have to cite one broad metric in which humanity has worsened over the past decades.
Is "people have improved over the last few decades" really the core of his argument though? I think you'd need to actually address the Enlightenment, or at least a longer period of time.
I wonder... Despite how, um, out of whack things are at present in the US, can we point to a time in the history of the US where things were definitely better for everyone?
We can probably point to a time when things were better for the average white male.
for this is be a valid argument, the sample mean has to be good estimator for the "true" mean, which is the case only for thin-tailed random variables. unfortunately, violence in humans is verifiably fat-tailed (short bursts of violence account for the vast majority of deaths). here other techniques for estimating the mean have to be used.
this has been done by cirillo and taleb [1], and the results are sobering: there is no evidence for a drop in violence. in fact, there isn't sufficient data for any kind of claim (intuition: major conflicts account for the majority of deaths; the inter-arrival time of a major conflicts is 100 years (ballpark); therefore 60 years of relative peace are not sufficient).
EDIT: removed preaching, since not relevant to the parent comment.
Cirillo and taleb show as you say the decline in violence may be unproven. It still doesn't show anything has got worse though so it doesn't really fit with shubhamjain's point.
"Taleb’s article implies that Better Angels consists of 700 pages of fancy statistical extrapolations which
lead to the conclusion that violent catastrophes have become impossible. He mistakenly refers to this as
“The Long Peace.” In fact “The Long Peace” (the term is John Gaddis’s) refers specifically to the welldocumented
post-1945 decline of wars among great powers and developed states. And the chapter with
that title is one of six that describe historical reductions in rates of violence. Another chapter discusses
the more tentative but still appreciable declines in civil war and terrorism since the end of the Cold War.
The remaining four pertain to other kinds of violence: tribal raiding and feuding, violent personal crime,
barbaric practices such as slavery and torture-executions, and violence on smaller scales such as
lynching, rape, spousal abuse, spanking, hate crimes, and cruelty to animals. The book makes it clear
that these developments obey very different statistical processes than those governing wars and
terrorist attacks; not even Taleb, presumably, would expect a sudden, massive, unpredictable jump in
human sacrifice, slave auctions, sodomy laws, or debtor’s prisons. So even if, as Taleb seems to believe,
the danger from major war has not declined, we would have plenty of other declines of violence to
explain. It’s an open question whether there are any common denominators behind these various
declines. Better Angels considers some possibilities, while making it clear that these declines do not
constitute a single phenomenon"
"Are the millions incarcerated in the vast American prison system and the millions more who live under parole included in the calculus that says human freedom is increasing?
If we are to congratulate ourselves on being less cruel to animals, how much weight should be given to the uncounted numbers that suffer in factory farming and hideous medical experiments – neither of which were practised on any comparable scale in the past? "
I have had a few conversations that seem similar to me. To refute global, long term stats, a specific, short term negative is brought up.
Pinker isn’t making the point that there is no injustice. Or that there is no violence. Just that there is less injustice and less violence. Significantly less than previously in history.
To answer your question, yes. Yes, the prisons of the US are included.
It seems odd to me to refute wide scale increasing demographic statistics with narrative examples.
The GP was explicitly requesting a specific negative. I wouldn't find that odd. Gray's article doesn't give any detailed statistics in response but questions it broadly by asking good questions. Another question he has asked is whether, given that the number of military deaths in war has dropped, whether the number of casualties has too, or if it also counts civilians affected, made homeless, forced to migrate away from home, had their lives ruined. Or whether the changing nature of warfare is any less violent (e.g. proxy wars in far away countries). Personally, I find them interesting, not odd, questions to ask.
I'm less convinced about Grays critique of Pinker's views on the Enlightenment (e.g. paraphrasing.. many of the founders of the Enlightenment were explicit racists and eugenicists - their rationality has more in common with Maoism). I think that the Enlightenment has changed in meaning over the years.
>Pinker isn’t making the point that there is no injustice. Or that there is no violence. Just that there is less injustice and less violence. Significantly less than previously in history.
Which is just a hazy and lazy estimation. Which we then takes to mean we're in some ever-progressing path.
Meanwhile the 20th century saw some of the biggest horrors, worse than the "middle ages".
I'm not sure that's true when you compare them but I'd need to go back to the data.
His larger point is that taking the larger arc of history into account, the world is on the whole less horrible than it once was. He doesn't claim we can't or won't regress.
Actually Pinker spends a lot of words on this. Even with the 20th century genocides the trend is down. And actually genocide was extremely common in absolute and relative terms that make the 20th century pale (Mongols, Roman genocide of Gauls).
This is what I found interesting as my understanding was the general consensus that 20th century was bad but the data shows otherwise.
Genocide occurred frequently, it just wasn’t reported on and wasn’t thought of as bad. Pinker goes into quite a bit how violent primitive tribes were in genocide. These examples weren’t large in absolute terms as the tribes were small, but relative were huge as they were close to 100%.
Also covers the violence in pre-history with violence rates of 30% from fossil record (not sure if this is the right term for 100k human ancestor remains as I don’t think they are fossils).
>you just have to cite one broad metric in which humanity has worsened over the past decades.
That's assuming (and it's already wrong) that the "past decades" are representative of a general trend (and we can't eg. regress to WWII levels in a hurry).
But he will still say that "oh, but we are having less violent deaths". Well, possibly. But deaths never came so fast from single individuals/actions/operations.
You always lose when the other part sets the metrics and they cannot be discussed.
Quoting the article, "The number of refugees worldwide, for instance, has climbed vertiginously over the past few decades, and is now approaching levels not seen since World War II."
I've found this 'things have never been better' attitude put forward by the world's (neo-)liberal elite mostly used as an excuse to keep their heads in the sand about serious threats to the ecosystem and the unsustainability of their socio-economic model.
This doesn't seem to be advocating sticking your head in the sand, but to continue using science to address the problems and stop panicking. As we've faced serious threats for a long time, and this model has dealt with them far better than others.
>This doesn't seem to be advocating sticking your head in the sand, but to continue using science to address the problems and stop panicking.
When those problems were created by use of science (or, more precisely, technology) in the first place, and when people don't take serious steps to fix them, then what you say is the last thing we want to do.
Instead we should panic, and stop believing we can abuse the environment as much as we want and "science" will magically solve our problems (as if we have some contract with science or nature).
From the review, it sounds like our current political problems receive no attention/treatment, and that Pinker advocates a future-dependent technological solution (better/more nuclear power to increase clean power generation) to a political problem we currently face (no will/incentive to enforce taxation scheme to reduce the status quo of carbon emissions) :
> What, for instance, about climate change? Pinker is no climate-change denier, and admits that “the challenge is daunting.” But then he quickly pivots from his position that things are getting better and better to say that we can avoid the looming doom if only we start taxing carbon emissions, increase the use of nuclear power, and engage in deliberate climate engineering to lower global temperatures.
> He largely disregards the fact that the political will to move in any of these directions is wholly lacking and will remain so as long as the party that controls the White House and Congress refuses to admit that a problem even exists. When it comes to his favored technological solution, nuclear power, Pinker also seems determined to ignore the problem that the people who manage plants do not always follow their own safety procedures and cannot plan for every possible natural disaster (as Fukushima showed all too dramatically). The industry, he insists, has learned from its mistakes. But has it?
I haven't read the book so I can't comment on how accurate this portrayal is
Really? I think it arises from simple economic incentives - not taxing emissions makes people (politicians and employees of basically all companies) richer than taxing emissions. Even the most educated and science worshiping populace would be hard pressed to vote for policy that would hamper economic growth and cost jobs/profits.
All the various rules under the EPA cost money, yet people passed it as there was a clear need to do so. The unwarranted doubt placed on global warming research is being used to mask the clear need.
The economic implications aren't as clear as you make them. Companies may make less profit right away, but assuming the amount of work needed is the same, that gap would need to be filled by innovation or manual labor.
Well this time is different. There is just one planet. Inevitably someone will pipe up that we need planet scale 'Geo-engineering' and faced with a system so far out of control already inevitably someone is going to fund some 'academics' to do something drastic to "save the planet".
Problem is in science 99% of the time in complex systems the experiments turn out something unexpected. Odds we'll accelerate doom instead of postponing it are pretty significant.
And all that just because we refuse to reign-in a socio-economic system in which the safe and assured solution, abstinence, is impossible to achieve as there is no single party making 'a profit' on it.
Perhaps the reason things keep getting better is because a lot of people are always panicking and furiously working to undo the damage of people who aren't?
You must not have been reading the news lately. It is not the "liberal elite" that is burying their heads in the sand about threats to the ecosystem. It is the political right that is doing that by calling anthropogenic climate change a "hoax" and chanting "drill baby, drill."
The "neo" part was in parentheses. But whatever was meant, there is very little overlap between those who cite Pinker favorably and those who don't care about the environment.
69 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 132 ms ] threadNassim Taleb argued successfully against his previous "Better Angels"book
Is it possible you have misunderstood Pinker's work?
Is it?
“Those who understand the book will refrain from summarizing its message.”
They sound like a cult of scared guru worshipers."
http://falkenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/nassim-taleb-imitat...
http://falkenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/review-of-talebs-bl...
http://falkenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/taleb-mishandles-fr...
Still, it's odd to me that so many reviews of this book apparently go beyond simply pointing out the flaws of the book in order to take a swipe at the man.
Do I smell schadenfreude?
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/01/the-precious-ste...
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/feb/14/enlightenment-...
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/john-gray-steven...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/11/25/what-comes-nat...
Also, I had the dubious pleasure of attending one of Pinker's talks. Let's just say that him coming off as unintelligent is an understatement. He seemed to be both completely unfamiliar with the very subject he had written about as well as incapable of forming any kind of interesting or novel insight about it. He just paraphrases well-worn anti-intellectual sentiments using what appears to the untrained ear as intellectual jargon. His audience in that particular talk happened to be mostly university professors, all of whom did their best not to laugh, as he was clearly the least-informed person in the quite-large room about the very subject on which he'd written a best-selling book!
My insults about this joke-of-an-intellectual are a much-watered-down version of how he's perceived by people who actually know the subject matter. Of course, these are the very people he critiques for this very reason. He can present them as his "opponents" and thus discard their actually-informed criticism as ideological opposition, saving him the trouble of actually studying the material.
That said, I do think that the further he strays from neuroscience and psychology, the more overconfident and shaky his claims seem to get. You could call it the Jared Diamond fallacy, a kind of high-brow cousin of the Dunning Kruger effect: scientists trained to be interdisciplinary who think that this training makes them competent historians as well. It doesn't.
I've been thinking about writing a rebuttal to Pinker's main claims in this book and Better Angels but I think the job has already been done by a combo of this review from the humanities realm (David Bell is a superb historian of the French Enlightenment) and the issues raised by people well-versed in statistics, like Taleb, who I personally find deeply unappealing as a thinker but who nevertheless is clearly skilled at this sort of critique.
Jared Diamond, with all his faults, is head and shoulders above Pinker. He, too, provides an overarching, overconfident narrative, but at least he more-or-less knows what he's talking about and, most importantly, has something interesting to say. It is not surprising that historians at least consider his thesis something to think about, while Pinker is considered a sad joke, and is more talked-about as a phenomenon (of the uneducated popular intellectual) than for the inanities he spews.
Pinker may be out of his depth when it comes to the bigger concepts but within the narrow constraints of materialism the data is incontrovertible. Pointing to a review written by Gray of Pinker's work when Gray is _explicitly_ in the camp which opposes the Polyannas of progress is bad sportsmanship.
What you should be asking yourself is how we can synthesise a worldview that incorporates both optimists and pessimists. I wholeheartedly agree that more nuance is needed but I also think that Pinker has done an excellent job at framing one side of the debate. The fact that he thinks there is only one side of the debate only means that he has as hard a time as the rest of us taking in the enormous sweep of human history and science.
I very much doubt you could write a decent rebuttal of either of his last two works.
Do yourself a favour and develop a sense of proportion.
Within the U.S., how about economic inequality and political partisanship, to name two?
Note that Pinker's argument is global, but not total, and not strictly monotonic.
We can probably point to a time when things were better for the average white male.
this has been done by cirillo and taleb [1], and the results are sobering: there is no evidence for a drop in violence. in fact, there isn't sufficient data for any kind of claim (intuition: major conflicts account for the majority of deaths; the inter-arrival time of a major conflicts is 100 years (ballpark); therefore 60 years of relative peace are not sufficient).
EDIT: removed preaching, since not relevant to the parent comment.
[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04722
"Are the millions incarcerated in the vast American prison system and the millions more who live under parole included in the calculus that says human freedom is increasing?
If we are to congratulate ourselves on being less cruel to animals, how much weight should be given to the uncounted numbers that suffer in factory farming and hideous medical experiments – neither of which were practised on any comparable scale in the past? "
Pinker isn’t making the point that there is no injustice. Or that there is no violence. Just that there is less injustice and less violence. Significantly less than previously in history.
To answer your question, yes. Yes, the prisons of the US are included.
It seems odd to me to refute wide scale increasing demographic statistics with narrative examples.
The GP was explicitly requesting a specific negative. I wouldn't find that odd. Gray's article doesn't give any detailed statistics in response but questions it broadly by asking good questions. Another question he has asked is whether, given that the number of military deaths in war has dropped, whether the number of casualties has too, or if it also counts civilians affected, made homeless, forced to migrate away from home, had their lives ruined. Or whether the changing nature of warfare is any less violent (e.g. proxy wars in far away countries). Personally, I find them interesting, not odd, questions to ask.
I'm less convinced about Grays critique of Pinker's views on the Enlightenment (e.g. paraphrasing.. many of the founders of the Enlightenment were explicit racists and eugenicists - their rationality has more in common with Maoism). I think that the Enlightenment has changed in meaning over the years.
So looking for a broad metric, not an example of something that is worse now (prison system).
Which is just a hazy and lazy estimation. Which we then takes to mean we're in some ever-progressing path.
Meanwhile the 20th century saw some of the biggest horrors, worse than the "middle ages".
His larger point is that taking the larger arc of history into account, the world is on the whole less horrible than it once was. He doesn't claim we can't or won't regress.
This is what I found interesting as my understanding was the general consensus that 20th century was bad but the data shows otherwise.
Genocide occurred frequently, it just wasn’t reported on and wasn’t thought of as bad. Pinker goes into quite a bit how violent primitive tribes were in genocide. These examples weren’t large in absolute terms as the tribes were small, but relative were huge as they were close to 100%.
Also covers the violence in pre-history with violence rates of 30% from fossil record (not sure if this is the right term for 100k human ancestor remains as I don’t think they are fossils).
That's assuming (and it's already wrong) that the "past decades" are representative of a general trend (and we can't eg. regress to WWII levels in a hurry).
But he will still say that "oh, but we are having less violent deaths". Well, possibly. But deaths never came so fast from single individuals/actions/operations.
You always lose when the other part sets the metrics and they cannot be discussed.
That is what I did.
When those problems were created by use of science (or, more precisely, technology) in the first place, and when people don't take serious steps to fix them, then what you say is the last thing we want to do.
Instead we should panic, and stop believing we can abuse the environment as much as we want and "science" will magically solve our problems (as if we have some contract with science or nature).
> What, for instance, about climate change? Pinker is no climate-change denier, and admits that “the challenge is daunting.” But then he quickly pivots from his position that things are getting better and better to say that we can avoid the looming doom if only we start taxing carbon emissions, increase the use of nuclear power, and engage in deliberate climate engineering to lower global temperatures.
> He largely disregards the fact that the political will to move in any of these directions is wholly lacking and will remain so as long as the party that controls the White House and Congress refuses to admit that a problem even exists. When it comes to his favored technological solution, nuclear power, Pinker also seems determined to ignore the problem that the people who manage plants do not always follow their own safety procedures and cannot plan for every possible natural disaster (as Fukushima showed all too dramatically). The industry, he insists, has learned from its mistakes. But has it?
I haven't read the book so I can't comment on how accurate this portrayal is
The economic implications aren't as clear as you make them. Companies may make less profit right away, but assuming the amount of work needed is the same, that gap would need to be filled by innovation or manual labor.
Problem is in science 99% of the time in complex systems the experiments turn out something unexpected. Odds we'll accelerate doom instead of postponing it are pretty significant.
And all that just because we refuse to reign-in a socio-economic system in which the safe and assured solution, abstinence, is impossible to achieve as there is no single party making 'a profit' on it.
=)