10 ms·
The PowerPoint Philosophe: Waiting for Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment
- hndamien 9y agoI 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.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ofrzeta 9y agoWhy 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".
- fl0wenol 9y agoBecause 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.
- consz 9y agoIs that uncommon (when referring to other people)? I can't think of anyone where I default to using only their last name.
- empthought 9y agoObama?
- haZard_OS 9y agoAs 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.
- maxxxxx 9y agoThat'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.
- useryournoggin 9y agohow do you know that musk is "correct" in this instance?
- toasterlovin 9y agoJust 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.
- hndamien 9y agoBut 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.
- bobthechef 9y agoAh, yes. Proof by Elon Musk. QED.
- RachelF 9y agoIt is a good book, Matt Ridley's "The Rational Optimist" is better written, and less Polyanna. Nassim Taleb argued successfully against his previous "Better Angels"book
- throwaway84742 9y agoNassim 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.
- garyclarke27 9y agoAgreed 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
- haZard_OS 9y agoWhich books have you read by Pinker? Claiming that a modern academic writer who is as prolific as Pinker has "no deep insights" is rather bold. Is it possible you have misunderstood Pinker's work?
- bobthechef 9y ago> Claiming that a modern academic writer who is as prolific as Pinker has "no deep insights" is rather bold. Is it?
- 9y ago
- haZard_OS 9y agoGenerally 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. Do I smell schadenfreude?
- pron 9y agoPinker 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.
- haZard_OS 9y agoTo you have anything other than insults to support your view?
- pron 9y agoSure. 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: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/01/the-precious-steven-pinker https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/01/the-precious-ste... https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/feb/14/enlightenment-now-steven-pinker-review https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/feb/14/enlightenment-... https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/john-gray-steven-pinker-violence-review https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/john-gray-steven... https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/11/25/what-comes-naturally-2 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.
- twblalock 9y agoThis is a much better review of Pinker's new book: https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/02/20/enlightenment-and-progress-or-why-steven-pinker-is-wrong https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/02/20/enlighte...
- shubhamjain 9y agoIf 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.
- newfoundglory 9y agoIs "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.
- comex 9y ago> you just have to cite one broad metric in which humanity has worsened over the past decades. Within the U.S., how about economic inequality and political partisanship, to name two?
- mpweiher 9y agoBut that's not "humanity", that's "within the US". Note that Pinker's argument is global, but not total, and not strictly monotonic.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y agoI 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.
- scythe 9y agoArable land area per capita
- SeanMacConMara 9y agoeasy our spaceship's life support system is changing to be less supportive of humanity due to our own sabotage
- 9y ago
- PeterStuer 9y agoI'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.
- infodroid 9y agoLike when Bill Gates called it his "new favorite book of all time".
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- boomboomsubban 9y agoThis 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.
- coldtea 9y ago>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).
- roymurdock 9y agoFrom 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