I’m also aware of his fairly ridiculous theoretical framing of the difference between conservatives and progressives (his idea of “The Tragic Vision” and “The Utopian Vision”) in The Blank Slate. But aside from that I thought many historians and political scientists and generally well-read people agreed with his basic thesis that violence has declined over history and that there have been specific sociological and psychological reasons for this that explain it. But am I wrong to be so impressed? Have I been on a steady diet of BS for the last few months? Please advise.Įdit: And, before you say it, I’m aware of the criticisms of Better Angels mischaracterizing or taking liberties with the facts on just how violent tribal people were/are. Pinker himself grossly overvalues the contributions of fields such as evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics and neuroscience to our modern understanding of ourselves. What is he referring to?Īre there serious, fundamental problems with the way Pinker sees the world that I’m not aware of? I’ve read a few of his books (The Blank Slate, Better Angels, Enlightenment Now, How the Mind Works, and The Sense of Style) and so far have found him an amazingly insightful voice on a huge variety of topics. Pinkers book is full of vigor and vim, and it sets out to inspire a similar.

Alex posted way back (but I’m just reading it now) that Pinker was one obvious example of someone who says many things that are self-evidently untrue and wildly factually inaccurate but still derives useful and brilliant theories that are of impressive value (if you’re willing to wade through the chaff to find the wheat). When not attacking the populist right, Pinker lays into leftist intellectuals.

Steven pinker now