6 ms·

Here's my rebuttal, comparing it to Andrew Yang's book: The War on Normal People https://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-problem-with-pinkers-positivity/ https://d

Here's my rebuttal, comparing it to Andrew Yang's book: The War on Normal People https://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-problem-with-pinkers-positivity/ https://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-problem-with-pinkers-pos...

quinthar 8y ago
This is a much, much better rebuttal than the other one. Thanks!
quinthar 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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.
sien 8y ago
Pinker's book is about the fate of world since 1800. Your response is about a few statistics in the US since 1990. They don't even extend to the rest of the developed world. Pinker doesn't say that everything is getting better all the time. There is still leaders like Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Maduro. He says, however, that in general things have become much better globally since 1800.
- danielrm26 8y ago
  The point is that it doesn't matter because the pain people are experiencing right now far outweighs any of the positive we've gained over the past. We don't experience deltas to the past. We experience deltas from what we remember.
  - okket 8y ago
    I'd believe this argument if the current pain is overwhelming enough to want to live in the past, say 1800s. With all consequences. But I am confident most people do not want to go back even to the 1990s.
lomnakkus 8y ago
(I can only apologize if the quoting gets weird. The side-notes on the right-hand side of your site got interspersed weirdly into the main text by copy/paste. I think I've managed to separate them properly, but if not... please forgive me.) > We're watching the entire meaning infrastructure in this country be destroyed. > Ok, so we're clearly in a very US-centric context here. > 1.Religion is going away. > [Sidebar:] As an atheist I think there is a lot of good that comes from discarding religion, but as a humble realist I also need to acknowledge the downsides. What downsides? Please state them explicitly. (I could read this as a conceit to the general political climate in the US where atheists seems to be viewed unfavorably by the majority.) > 2. Most people will not have a good job or a good paycheck. Clearly some type of Basic Income type system will eventually become necessary as more and more things are automated. That, or we figure out what purpose the concept of money actually serves and come up with a better implementation. > > 3. Being a homemaker is no longer considered meaningful for a lot of parents. I don't understand how you can claim that this is "destroying meaning"? Let me ask a pointed question: Who do you envision as being the homemaker -- the wife or the husband? > > So where is the meaning coming from? I get the feeling that either I'm completely missing the point of what you're writing, or you're writing from a pretty "conservative" position. (EDIT: HN is really absurdly shit at quoting others. I'd apologize for my bad formatting, but I really don't understand how this shoddiness is acceptable in any world. Anyway, I did my best and will probably proceed to try to delete my account at this point.)
- dijit 8y ago
  > Let me ask a pointed question: Who do you envision as being the homemaker -- the wife or the husband? This feels like a tacit question. To answer the way you painted it: it doesn’t have to be either. The role is eroding because the expectation is, that regardless of gender both partners in a relationship need to be working. This is to facilitate the rising cost of a raising family in large city environments.
  - lomnakkus 8y ago
    In the context of the US and "the way things used to be", if would have to be the wife. Btw, it doesn't really matter which one it is -- the point was that it's asymmetrical. > The role is eroding because the expectation is, that regardless of gender both partners in a relationship need to be working. Why would both partners working be a problem in the first place? What about socialized (gasp!) child care? Obviously, you'll want both parents to be spending as much time as possible with their children, but the underlying problem here seems to be... money. If there were less pressure to earn then maybe both parents could change to a 3-4 days work-week, etc. etc. (EDIT: I'll actually add a counter-point to my own assertion here. It may not actually be the case that spending more time with one's children is always better. There may be a Goldilocks zone.) > This is to facilitate the rising cost of a raising family in large city environments. I think I understand the symptom. Cost means money. Obviously, things will have to change on a massive scale for "my" conception of the future to be feasible everywhere, but I still understand what this has to do with meaning (as your original blog post was about).
boomboomsubban 8y ago
>As a case in point, the CDC has reported that the suicide rate has risen by 30% since 1999. That to me indicates a clear drop in happiness. How so? "Unhappiness" isn't what causes suicide, so using it as a guage for happiness is a stretch. Even still, why assume it is a drop in happiness and not a rise in something like access to guns? And isn't Pinker's larger point that people have been preaching the upcoming "CATASTROPHE" for the past three hundred years and yet largely things keep getting better?
- bodas 8y ago
  > And isn't Pinker's larger point that people have been preaching the upcoming "CATASTROPHE" for the past three hundred years and yet largely things keep getting better? That is such a terrible argument because, for one, it ignores all the catastrophes that did happen in the last 300 years to various peoples.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    I can't remember any events that led to total ruin. Steps back, but not total ruin.
    - watwut 8y ago
      WWII was total ruin, quite literally. Calling it step back would be sever understatement. Calling WWI "step back" is understatement too. Stalin purge - same thing. 300 years time span still catches French Revolution and American Civil War. For affected population they were large large catastrophes that happened to affected people. Historically, catastrophes can happen, do happen, cause a lot of suffering and death. It is actually good idea to take that possibility seriously, warn where you seen them becoming more likely and take steps to prevent them.
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        >Calling WWI "step back" is understatement too. Really? It had such little impact, they were ready to do it again in twenty years. All your examples are similar in that regard. They were certainly horrible for the people involved, but not a catastrophe that was impossible to recover from. You're using a less extreme use of the word "catastrophe" than what Pinker is describing. No one doubts that there are problems now that could get worse. More that we shouldn't romanticise some past age, and we shouldn't abandon the enlightenment values that got us here.
ralusek 8y ago
I don't see these two books as being at odds with each other. I think Pinker's book is a statement about two things: 1.) We need to take a step back and look at what we have and really appreciate how departed our current luxuries are from the entire history of humanity. Many of the issues described in Yang's book are about how menial repetitive jobs are disappearing from the market. There is an obvious downside in that these are lost jobs that might not be replaceable to the people of those capabilities, but the upside of this is that we have removed the need for people to do menial repetitive jobs; by no means a minor upside. A human's whole life used to be consumed by the necessity to do this work, the problem we have to deal with now is simply going to be in terms of how we handle the surplus of time we've freed from the human workforce. This is a much better problem to have, strategies like UBI are generally well received even by the staunchest libertarian types in recognition of technological advancement. 2.) We need to acknowledge what got us to where we are. Enlightenment values; justice, science, rationality, and most importantly, liberty. There was an ideological battle last century that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people, and I tend to agree with Pinker's ilk that the recognition of this being a consequence of deviating from Enlightenment values is extremely important, and not nearly as accepted only a few decades later is a cause for concern. I don't think that Yang's arguments for the need to consider UBI is something that Pinker would disagree with at all. I don't think that Pinker's assertion that rationality and liberty have gotten us to where we are now, and the last centuries of human innovation have objectively lifted humans worldwide across many dimensions is something incompatible with Yang's message.

quinthar 8y ago

This is a much, much better rebuttal than the other one. Thanks!

quinthar 8y ago

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 8y ago
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.

sien 8y ago

Pinker's book is about the fate of world since 1800. Your response is about a few statistics in the US since 1990. They don't even extend to the rest of the developed world. Pinker doesn't say that everything is getting better all the time. There is still leaders like Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Maduro. He says, however, that in general things have become much better globally since 1800.

danielrm26 8y ago
The point is that it doesn't matter because the pain people are experiencing right now far outweighs any of the positive we've gained over the past. We don't experience deltas to the past. We experience deltas from what we remember.
- okket 8y ago
  I'd believe this argument if the current pain is overwhelming enough to want to live in the past, say 1800s. With all consequences. But I am confident most people do not want to go back even to the 1990s.

lomnakkus 8y ago

(I can only apologize if the quoting gets weird. The side-notes on the right-hand side of your site got interspersed weirdly into the main text by copy/paste. I think I've managed to separate them properly, but if not... please forgive me.) > We're watching the entire meaning infrastructure in this country be destroyed. > Ok, so we're clearly in a very US-centric context here. > 1.Religion is going away. > [Sidebar:] As an atheist I think there is a lot of good that comes from discarding religion, but as a humble realist I also need to acknowledge the downsides. What downsides? Please state them explicitly. (I could read this as a conceit to the general political climate in the US where atheists seems to be viewed unfavorably by the majority.) > 2. Most people will not have a good job or a good paycheck. Clearly some type of Basic Income type system will eventually become necessary as more and more things are automated. That, or we figure out what purpose the concept of money actually serves and come up with a better implementation. > > 3. Being a homemaker is no longer considered meaningful for a lot of parents. I don't understand how you can claim that this is "destroying meaning"? Let me ask a pointed question: Who do you envision as being the homemaker -- the wife or the husband? > > So where is the meaning coming from? I get the feeling that either I'm completely missing the point of what you're writing, or you're writing from a pretty "conservative" position. (EDIT: HN is really absurdly shit at quoting others. I'd apologize for my bad formatting, but I really don't understand how this shoddiness is acceptable in any world. Anyway, I did my best and will probably proceed to try to delete my account at this point.)

dijit 8y ago
> Let me ask a pointed question: Who do you envision as being the homemaker -- the wife or the husband? This feels like a tacit question. To answer the way you painted it: it doesn’t have to be either. The role is eroding because the expectation is, that regardless of gender both partners in a relationship need to be working. This is to facilitate the rising cost of a raising family in large city environments.
- lomnakkus 8y ago
  In the context of the US and "the way things used to be", if would have to be the wife. Btw, it doesn't really matter which one it is -- the point was that it's asymmetrical. > The role is eroding because the expectation is, that regardless of gender both partners in a relationship need to be working. Why would both partners working be a problem in the first place? What about socialized (gasp!) child care? Obviously, you'll want both parents to be spending as much time as possible with their children, but the underlying problem here seems to be... money. If there were less pressure to earn then maybe both parents could change to a 3-4 days work-week, etc. etc. (EDIT: I'll actually add a counter-point to my own assertion here. It may not actually be the case that spending more time with one's children is always better. There may be a Goldilocks zone.) > This is to facilitate the rising cost of a raising family in large city environments. I think I understand the symptom. Cost means money. Obviously, things will have to change on a massive scale for "my" conception of the future to be feasible everywhere, but I still understand what this has to do with meaning (as your original blog post was about).

boomboomsubban 8y ago

>As a case in point, the CDC has reported that the suicide rate has risen by 30% since 1999. That to me indicates a clear drop in happiness. How so? "Unhappiness" isn't what causes suicide, so using it as a guage for happiness is a stretch. Even still, why assume it is a drop in happiness and not a rise in something like access to guns? And isn't Pinker's larger point that people have been preaching the upcoming "CATASTROPHE" for the past three hundred years and yet largely things keep getting better?

bodas 8y ago
> And isn't Pinker's larger point that people have been preaching the upcoming "CATASTROPHE" for the past three hundred years and yet largely things keep getting better? That is such a terrible argument because, for one, it ignores all the catastrophes that did happen in the last 300 years to various peoples.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  I can't remember any events that led to total ruin. Steps back, but not total ruin.
  - watwut 8y ago
    WWII was total ruin, quite literally. Calling it step back would be sever understatement. Calling WWI "step back" is understatement too. Stalin purge - same thing. 300 years time span still catches French Revolution and American Civil War. For affected population they were large large catastrophes that happened to affected people. Historically, catastrophes can happen, do happen, cause a lot of suffering and death. It is actually good idea to take that possibility seriously, warn where you seen them becoming more likely and take steps to prevent them.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      >Calling WWI "step back" is understatement too. Really? It had such little impact, they were ready to do it again in twenty years. All your examples are similar in that regard. They were certainly horrible for the people involved, but not a catastrophe that was impossible to recover from. You're using a less extreme use of the word "catastrophe" than what Pinker is describing. No one doubts that there are problems now that could get worse. More that we shouldn't romanticise some past age, and we shouldn't abandon the enlightenment values that got us here.

ralusek 8y ago

I don't see these two books as being at odds with each other. I think Pinker's book is a statement about two things: 1.) We need to take a step back and look at what we have and really appreciate how departed our current luxuries are from the entire history of humanity. Many of the issues described in Yang's book are about how menial repetitive jobs are disappearing from the market. There is an obvious downside in that these are lost jobs that might not be replaceable to the people of those capabilities, but the upside of this is that we have removed the need for people to do menial repetitive jobs; by no means a minor upside. A human's whole life used to be consumed by the necessity to do this work, the problem we have to deal with now is simply going to be in terms of how we handle the surplus of time we've freed from the human workforce. This is a much better problem to have, strategies like UBI are generally well received even by the staunchest libertarian types in recognition of technological advancement. 2.) We need to acknowledge what got us to where we are. Enlightenment values; justice, science, rationality, and most importantly, liberty. There was an ideological battle last century that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people, and I tend to agree with Pinker's ilk that the recognition of this being a consequence of deviating from Enlightenment values is extremely important, and not nearly as accepted only a few decades later is a cause for concern. I don't think that Yang's arguments for the need to consider UBI is something that Pinker would disagree with at all. I don't think that Pinker's assertion that rationality and liberty have gotten us to where we are now, and the last centuries of human innovation have objectively lifted humans worldwide across many dimensions is something incompatible with Yang's message.