16 ms·

To paraphrase Gate, this is my new favorite review of this book :-). The other is http://quillette.com/2018/03/11/steven-pinkers-counter-counter-enlightenment/

To paraphrase Gate, this is my new favorite review of this book :-). The other is http://quillette.com/2018/03/11/steven-pinkers-counter-counter-enlightenment/ http://quillette.com/2018/03/11/steven-pinkers-counter-count... It's simple. Responses to Pinker's writings can be divided into two groups: The rational pessimists and the rational optimists.

ianamartin 9y ago
Don't forget Taleb. Not sure if he's optimist or pessimist, but he's definitely not rational.
- muro 9y ago
  Why is he not rational? I like his highlighting of hidden risk. It's hard to make rational decisions if you don't have all/enough information and there are plenty recent examples of unbounded optimism ending badly.
  - geodel 9y ago
    I think it is because Taleb uses hard statistics to make counter arguments. A pop rationalist will tell us how things have become awesomely awesome over last few hundred years.
mannykannot 9y ago
Both of these reviews bring up the matter of irrational responses, in the form of what Aaronson calls 'hostile mistranslation', the willful misinterpretation of the work in order to build whatever straw man the reviewer wants to attack.
- thraway180306 9y ago
  This matter being itself a cliche in these circles. Rationalist forums are full of denouncing uncharitable critics who intentionally misunderstand what is obviously innocuous and infallible if you would just understand (presumably by god-given charity). I think this knee-jerk reaction is itself irrational. In the above review for example the reviewer builds a straw-man that the critics are anti-science. Calling out religious features of arguments bordering on scientism (it does even have a church!) is not denouncing scientific method.
- jfaucett 9y ago
  Yes. I think we've all experienced and been perpetrators of this. Its so base and natural to want to maintain your own viewpoints that everyone does this naturally. The way I try to get around it for myself is actually imagine I am that person and seeing the world through their eyes. This does give you a very bad emotional feeling that you have to fight against, but it does help, it especially gives you better prodding questions that are genuinely for understanding and not malicious.
Bartweiss 9y ago
Pinker often frustrates me, I think he has an unpleasant tendency to only entertain one explanation of any given event. But he's certainly an interesting writer, and his work prompts more fascinating discussions than almost anyone else I can think of.
justin66 9y ago
> Responses to Pinker's writings can be divided into two groups: The rational pessimists and the rational optimists. It seems to me you're ignoring the irrational people who respond to Pinker's writings. That's a reasonable thing to do, but there sure are a lot of them...

ianamartin 9y ago

Don't forget Taleb. Not sure if he's optimist or pessimist, but he's definitely not rational.

muro 9y ago
Why is he not rational? I like his highlighting of hidden risk. It's hard to make rational decisions if you don't have all/enough information and there are plenty recent examples of unbounded optimism ending badly.
- geodel 9y ago
  I think it is because Taleb uses hard statistics to make counter arguments. A pop rationalist will tell us how things have become awesomely awesome over last few hundred years.

mannykannot 9y ago

Both of these reviews bring up the matter of irrational responses, in the form of what Aaronson calls 'hostile mistranslation', the willful misinterpretation of the work in order to build whatever straw man the reviewer wants to attack.

thraway180306 9y ago
This matter being itself a cliche in these circles. Rationalist forums are full of denouncing uncharitable critics who intentionally misunderstand what is obviously innocuous and infallible if you would just understand (presumably by god-given charity). I think this knee-jerk reaction is itself irrational. In the above review for example the reviewer builds a straw-man that the critics are anti-science. Calling out religious features of arguments bordering on scientism (it does even have a church!) is not denouncing scientific method.
jfaucett 9y ago
Yes. I think we've all experienced and been perpetrators of this. Its so base and natural to want to maintain your own viewpoints that everyone does this naturally. The way I try to get around it for myself is actually imagine I am that person and seeing the world through their eyes. This does give you a very bad emotional feeling that you have to fight against, but it does help, it especially gives you better prodding questions that are genuinely for understanding and not malicious.

Bartweiss 9y ago

Pinker often frustrates me, I think he has an unpleasant tendency to only entertain one explanation of any given event. But he's certainly an interesting writer, and his work prompts more fascinating discussions than almost anyone else I can think of.

justin66 9y ago

> Responses to Pinker's writings can be divided into two groups: The rational pessimists and the rational optimists. It seems to me you're ignoring the irrational people who respond to Pinker's writings. That's a reasonable thing to do, but there sure are a lot of them...