5 ms·

Yes, I don't think that view was expressed in Gray's article about Pinker. But I imagine that there could be an implication that "if the data shows the world is

by chippy 9y ago

Yes, I don't think that view was expressed in Gray's article about Pinker. But I imagine that there could be an implication that "if the data shows the world is improving, it always will do, progress happens one way and is always going up" which Gray takes issue to. Why act if everything is getting better anyhow?

rpedela 9y ago
Why act like the world isn't getting better if it actually is?
- sooheon 9y ago
  It is getting better for some people by some measures, and worse for others by other measures. What Pinker and Gates are attempting to impose is a tyranny of faux rationality--"an 800 pg book with sources up the wazoo say that the world is getting better, all these whiny poor folk must just be delusional".
  - rpedela 9y ago
    > What Pinker and Gates are attempting to impose is a tyranny of faux rationality--"an 800 pg book with sources up the wazoo say that the world is getting better, all these whiny poor folk must just be delusional". That is a pretty extreme reading of what Pinker and Gates are saying. I don't think they are saying that at all.
    - mar77i 9y ago
      I still fail to see the problem at hand? Would faux rationality that the world is getting better constantly not keep us in silent optimism, as opposed to - urm - violently keep fighting for it being made much worse? What cruel bastard would even do such a thing, anyway?
  - crispinb 9y ago
    Only very strong motivated reasoning would lead someone like Gates -- who would presumably consider himself 'rational' -- to take seriously a book written by an amateur historian in full-scale emeritus mode. Outside of his own field, Pinker's just a crank. He doesn't understand his sources, and isn't taken seriously by anyone that I've read so far who has the slightest interest in or understanding of historiography. The source of Gates' wonky motivation can only be known to him (if he possesses enough self-awareness). We might guess that justification of the changes his corrupt dealings have been a part of (and made him in the process a leading megaconsumer) might have something to do with it.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- andrepd 9y ago
  It's getting better for some measures of 'better', and it's getting worse for others. It's also getting 'better' for some people, and less so for others. For example I contend life is either more or less the same or worse for a middle class family in the US in the past 40 years, and is fabulously better for the super-rich.
  - edanm 9y ago
    "I contend life is either more or less the same or worse for a middle class family in the US in the past 40 years" Really? 40 years ago we didn't have the internet, didn't have videogames, had far far far fewer TV shows/movies/entertainment options. Worse health outcomes, though to a less significant degree I think. Far more access to education and educational content (you can effectively get the equivalent of a degree in almost anything, online, for free). More access to healthier foods. Middle class families in the US have access to all of the above. Would most of them really go back to a time when they didn't?
haberman 9y ago
Though I can't find a reference right now, I am pretty sure Pinker repeatedly and emphatically disavows any claim that progress will inevitably continue. There is no doubt we have to work for it. Pinker's work is a rebuttal to people who want to paint the world as hopelessly bad right now.
Symmetry 9y ago
The world gets better because people have been demonstrably trying to make it better. If the efforts of everyone trying to improve the world had come to naught then that would be an argument for lazy cynicism.

by chippy 9y ago

rpedela 9y ago

Why act like the world isn't getting better if it actually is?

sooheon 9y ago
It is getting better for some people by some measures, and worse for others by other measures. What Pinker and Gates are attempting to impose is a tyranny of faux rationality--"an 800 pg book with sources up the wazoo say that the world is getting better, all these whiny poor folk must just be delusional".
- rpedela 9y ago
  > What Pinker and Gates are attempting to impose is a tyranny of faux rationality--"an 800 pg book with sources up the wazoo say that the world is getting better, all these whiny poor folk must just be delusional". That is a pretty extreme reading of what Pinker and Gates are saying. I don't think they are saying that at all.
  - mar77i 9y ago
    I still fail to see the problem at hand? Would faux rationality that the world is getting better constantly not keep us in silent optimism, as opposed to - urm - violently keep fighting for it being made much worse? What cruel bastard would even do such a thing, anyway?
- crispinb 9y ago
  Only very strong motivated reasoning would lead someone like Gates -- who would presumably consider himself 'rational' -- to take seriously a book written by an amateur historian in full-scale emeritus mode. Outside of his own field, Pinker's just a crank. He doesn't understand his sources, and isn't taken seriously by anyone that I've read so far who has the slightest interest in or understanding of historiography. The source of Gates' wonky motivation can only be known to him (if he possesses enough self-awareness). We might guess that justification of the changes his corrupt dealings have been a part of (and made him in the process a leading megaconsumer) might have something to do with it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
andrepd 9y ago
It's getting better for some measures of 'better', and it's getting worse for others. It's also getting 'better' for some people, and less so for others. For example I contend life is either more or less the same or worse for a middle class family in the US in the past 40 years, and is fabulously better for the super-rich.
- edanm 9y ago
  "I contend life is either more or less the same or worse for a middle class family in the US in the past 40 years" Really? 40 years ago we didn't have the internet, didn't have videogames, had far far far fewer TV shows/movies/entertainment options. Worse health outcomes, though to a less significant degree I think. Far more access to education and educational content (you can effectively get the equivalent of a degree in almost anything, online, for free). More access to healthier foods. Middle class families in the US have access to all of the above. Would most of them really go back to a time when they didn't?

haberman 9y ago

Though I can't find a reference right now, I am pretty sure Pinker repeatedly and emphatically disavows any claim that progress will inevitably continue. There is no doubt we have to work for it. Pinker's work is a rebuttal to people who want to paint the world as hopelessly bad right now.

Symmetry 9y ago

The world gets better because people have been demonstrably trying to make it better. If the efforts of everyone trying to improve the world had come to naught then that would be an argument for lazy cynicism.