3 ms·

I think that Better Angels makes a stronger case from a qualitative point of view than it does from the quantitative point of view. Taleb and others have critic

I think that Better Angels makes a stronger case from a qualitative point of view than it does from the quantitative point of view. Taleb and others have criticized Pinker’s statistical analysis quite convincingly, but the historical narrative still stands: looking at the human cruelty throughout history, it’s hard to deny that there are many violent practices that are now taboo, and that we seem to have broken out of the hobbesian trap.

benbreen 9y ago
The overall historical narrative that he presents, about specific factors like capital punishment and infant mortality, is generally valid. But Pinker's use of historical evidence is at least as flawed as the issues with his statistics. Better Angels literally appears to be based on a group of research assistants, without archival training, being let loose in a library and tasked with cataloguing all examples of violence and mortality throughout history. This leads to an obvious sample bias and to Pinker basing the bulk of his argument on some truly questionable, non-peer reviewed secondary sources. It is frankly the kind of approach that would get called out if done by an undergraduate history major. And I say that as someone who thinks Pinker is a fantastic writer, and who is sympathetic to much of the argument of Better Angels. But it's hard for me not to see some level of condescension in Pinker's approach to doing historical analysis. What he does in that book is akin to me (if you couldn't already guess, an historian) trying to write a pop linguistics book by reading a bunch of library books on the subject and chatting with the linguistics professors who have offices down the hall from me.
- oxymoron 9y ago
  I stand corrected, and appreciate hearing your perspective. It does have a different structural feel to it compared to works I’ve read by respected modern day historians (which isn’t that many), so I think I can see what you’re getting at.
FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
Another related development is that you don't need to have a successful military career to distinguish oneself. Also, compulsory military drafts aren't nearly as widespread.

benbreen 9y ago

The overall historical narrative that he presents, about specific factors like capital punishment and infant mortality, is generally valid. But Pinker's use of historical evidence is at least as flawed as the issues with his statistics. Better Angels literally appears to be based on a group of research assistants, without archival training, being let loose in a library and tasked with cataloguing all examples of violence and mortality throughout history. This leads to an obvious sample bias and to Pinker basing the bulk of his argument on some truly questionable, non-peer reviewed secondary sources. It is frankly the kind of approach that would get called out if done by an undergraduate history major. And I say that as someone who thinks Pinker is a fantastic writer, and who is sympathetic to much of the argument of Better Angels. But it's hard for me not to see some level of condescension in Pinker's approach to doing historical analysis. What he does in that book is akin to me (if you couldn't already guess, an historian) trying to write a pop linguistics book by reading a bunch of library books on the subject and chatting with the linguistics professors who have offices down the hall from me.

oxymoron 9y ago
I stand corrected, and appreciate hearing your perspective. It does have a different structural feel to it compared to works I’ve read by respected modern day historians (which isn’t that many), so I think I can see what you’re getting at.

FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago

Another related development is that you don't need to have a successful military career to distinguish oneself. Also, compulsory military drafts aren't nearly as widespread.