
Steven Pinker’s case for optimism - okket
https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2018/02/24/steven-pinkers-case-for-optimism
======
peter303
We saw a Pinker-like optimism before- at the beginning of the 20th century. We
had gone nearly a century since Waterloo without a major war. (Plenty of
smaller conflicts however to create national republics out of monarchies or
fragmented city states.) People said interlocking global trade made countries
too dependent on each other to fight each other.

Then what happened? The 75-year great 20th century war from 1914 to 1989. It
had three or four phases: WWI, WWII, the cold war, the wars of southeast Asia.

I would not get too confident again.

~~~
jopsen
So... a baseless assumption that war is cyclic, despite this being disproven
with data in Stevens previous works.

The world 200 years ago and the world today is different.. politics are
different and out global community is VERY different.

In fact UN has been pointed to as one of the reasons why we have less war..

~~~
cm2187
I think nukes contributed a lot more than the UN. Western Europe would have
been invaded by the Soviet Union twice otherwise.

~~~
jopsen
I don't recall the data supporting this, do you have any?

In many ways, being able to say that is also what's cool about Pinkers book.
Sure, it doesn't reference all studies ever done, but it does attempt to argue
what worked and what didn't.

~~~
DEADBEEFC0FFEE
It does however reference all the papers, that he uses.

------
armitron
Here is a good rebuttal by John Gray:

[https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/02/unenlight...](https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/02/unenlightened-
thinking-steven-pinker-s-embarrassing-new-book-feeble-sermon)

~~~
quinthar
Hmm how is this a good rebuttal? I haven't read the book, but the original
article is based primarily on clear assertions of fact and statistics. A "good
rebuttal" world presumably show that those stats are wrong, or at best
misleading. But John's rebuttal is just a bunch of ponderous, abstract
philosophy, with the most compelling part (and it's not very compelling)
being:

"Much of its more than 500 pages consists of figures aiming to show the
progress that has been made under the aegis of Enlightenment ideals. Of
course, these figures settle nothing. [Uh, of course? Care to elaborate?] Like
Pinker’s celebrated assertion that the world is becoming ever more peaceful –
the statistical basis of which has been demolished by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
[Oh snap! It was demolished by this dude I've never heard of, using reasoning
that isn't provided? Dammnnnn, sick burn] everything depends on what is
included in them and how they are interpreted. [Alright, I'm ready for you
truth bomb]

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? [Um, are they not? Or are you asking me to do the
homework to see if your point has merit?] 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? [Good question... that you decline to answer]"

Basically: "X is misleading, because what about Y?" I don't know man, can you
just tell me rather than leaving me guessing? It would be more compelling if
he did his own homework rather than leaving his sucker punch as an exercise to
the reader.

I think the original article is far more compelling than this so called
rebuttal.

~~~
severine
Background on Pinker/Taleb: [https://www.quora.com/Is-Nassim-Talebs-criticism-
of-Steven-P...](https://www.quora.com/Is-Nassim-Talebs-criticism-of-Steven-
Pinkers-work-fair)

------
jopsen
I've read most of the audio book by now.. and along with Pinkers previous book
ok violence I can honestly say my mind have been changed.

I was never a pessimist. But it have changed the narrative I often take in a
discussion on a subject.

~~~
DEADBEEFC0FFEE
I've listen to a couple of talks, and am about 1/3 way through the book. It's
certainly changed my perspective.

I found the descriptions of true poverty, quite impactful.

------
a3n
> Progress has often been stunningly rapid. The vast majority of poor
> Americans enjoy luxuries unavailable to the Vanderbilts and Astors of 150
> years ago, such as electricity, air-conditioning and colour televisions.

Yes, things are better, but only when they're not terrible.

I think the Vanderbilts and Astors, and their current cousins, inbred and not,
still have a profound advantage over the rest of us, poor or not, in that they
enjoy existential security within the current frame of reference, and can
reasonably live their lives with that assumption.

In other words, the rich experience little to no risk in losing what security
they have, or falling below the security level of the poor, while constant
security risk could be the practical definition of being poor.

So what if you have a phone, if that and all else can disappear in the wink of
a bureaucratic or natural systems eye.

~~~
grappler
Can you quantify the quality-of-life boost you get by being at the top of the
heap?

If you're the head of state, or the head of a successful company, or the
venture capitalist, or simply heir to a fortune, you know you're on top. You
wake up every day knowing your time belongs to you. You walk into a room and
people smile at you, suck up to you, want to be your friend. You might even
make frequent decisions about which _other_ people in your world move upward
or downward.

This seems like it would be a significant dimension for anyone wanting to
measure quality of life. And for this reason, I bet a lot of people wouldn't
mind terribly if they had to give up their electricity, air conditioning,
color television, and the rest of their modern conveniences if it meant they
could swap lives with the Vanderbilits and Astors of old.

~~~
a3n
I can't quantify it. But I'm not talking about being top of the heap, and your
resulting relationship with others. I'm talking about the security of your
food, shelter and health care, that sort of thing. If you're poor, those
things can disappear quickly.

~~~
grappler
Sorry didn't mean you specifically. Just the royal you.

------
ouid
This is stupid. You can always find riskier investments with bigger payoffs,
and there is nothing to suggest that that is not what is happening. No one is
arguing that we aren't all better off. We're arguing that we're all better off
at the expense of the very real possibility that we will all be much worse off
in the future.

~~~
qubax
And even if we are better off compared to the past, it doesn't mean we are in
a better situation today given the increasing wealth inequality. Pinker is
selectively emphasizing the socio-economic comparisons with the past and
ignoring current socio-economic comparisons between population groups. If the
gap between rich and the rest is wider today than it was 50 years ago, are we
really better off?

Lets say you have a boxing match and your opponent's boxing gloves are
slightly better than yours. The next boxing match, your opponent gives you his
boxing gloves and he uses brass knuckles. You're currently better off compared
to your previous self since you have better boxing gloves. But the distance
between your current self and your opponent ( brass knuckles ) has increased
significantly. So are you really better off?

It's like two groups going to battle. In the first battle, group A fights with
wiffle bats and group B fights with baseball bats. For the next battle, group
A wises up and brings baseball bats. But group B brings machine guns.

Technically, in battle 2, group A is better off with baseball bats rather than
wiffle bats. But the "distance" between them and their opponent has increased
significantly so you'd be hard pressed to say they are better off in battle 2.

This is the same trick economists use. Just because things improve in absolute
terms over time doesn't mean that things are better off comparatively within
societies.

~~~
DEADBEEFC0FFEE
I'm not sure why you chose to you battles for your examples, they are zero-
sum.

With regards to progress only being relative, I think most people who get
amazing medical treatments, will disagree with you.

~~~
qubax
> I'm not sure why you chose to you battles for your examples, they are zero-
> sum.

Because power relations between groups is a zero sum game.

> With regards to progress only being relative, I think most people who get
> amazing medical treatments, will disagree with you.

I didn't say progress was relative. I didn't even mention relative. I
specifically mention the wealth gap and the growing disparity between the rich
and the rest and the uneven power disparity. Hence my examples of battle.

I was sure someone would bring up "zero-sum" but not the way you brought it up
by misunderstanding my comment. The garden variety "zero-sum" response would
justify the wealthy getting the lion share of wealth and everyone getting
crumbs because everyone is still better off. And normally, I'd respond that if
the wealthy got crumbs and the rest got the lion share, everyone would still
be better off. You replaced one straw man with another.

------
danielrm26
Here's my rebuttal, comparing it to Andrew Yang's book: The War on Normal
People

[https://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-problem-with-pinkers-
pos...](https://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-problem-with-pinkers-positivity/)

~~~
quinthar
I think a big challenge (and perhaps the root problem) is weighing the
relative importance of different relative changes. Car deaths are down 97%,
but suicides are up 30%. On balance, are things getting better or worse? (I'd
say that car deaths are by far more common so the reduction there is more
significant, but suicides are probably more directly correlated to happiness
that car accidents...)

I'm more persuaded by the optimistic perspective, personally, but these are
great contrasting pieces to highlight that it's not a slam dunk.

~~~
dredmorbius
The biggest reduction in car deaths per passenger mile occurred from
1915-1925, about a halving in a decade.

Since then, from 1925 - 2015, the rate has consistently halved every 20 years.

------
maym86
To me argument always just seems like someone from a position of privlidge
explaining why we shouldn't be too worried about all the people in shitty
opressive circumstances. Great, things on average are getting better, but try
telling that to the people in Flint drinking poisionous water or the children
in cages etc. "Don't worry, things are getting better on average"

Statisically he may be right for certain measurable factors but it seems a
little naive or callous when he's clearly not directly effected by the worst
issues in the world.

~~~
toasterlovin
The relative social position of the person making the argument has no bearing
on whether the argument is correct.

~~~
jopsen
Spot on!

This is one of the problems we see on the left from time to time.. for example
someone suggesting that men can't have an opinion on gender equality, or what
not..

(note. the problems on the right in American politics does however seem
objectively worse by a few orders of magnitude)

~~~
maym86
> men can't have an opinion on gender equality, or what not

It's about getting the people with the right experience and weighting people's
opinions based on experience. For a long time mens opinions have been
overweighted in gender issues hence the push for rebalancing.

~~~
jopsen
I understand the feeling..

But if you want to change the mind of other thinking people, it's better to
argue the merits of the message than debate the identity of carrier.

~~~
maym86
It's not about "identity". It's about experience with the issue which for many
gender issues is often tied to identity. "Other thinking people" can also do
better to recognize this.

------
fapjacks
Most of the whataboutism in response to this idea boils down to some form of
"But but muh feelings" and I think really shows how little people know about
both history and life outside the developed world. The other thing I find
unusual is the number of people who think that optimists are saying "We have
no problems whatsoever" \-- and I can't for the life of me find where the
article, other optimists, or myself have ever said such a thing. Weird.

~~~
jopsen
I think optimism is not be best word. Optimism is to expect the more favorable
outcome.

Steven seems much more like a realist who with a basis in fact predicts that
things will be okay, if we keep working on the problems..

