4 ms·

I'm not sure I'd use the term "improving" but would instead say "changing." The perception of those changes has certainly been weighted towards "improvement" b

I'm not sure I'd use the term "improving" but would instead say "changing." The perception of those changes has certainly been weighted towards "improvement" but some of that perception is a hangover from the popular mid-century views that most people held regarding science and technology (others held such views prior to that time but I wouldn't say they were the majority).

hntrader 6y ago
Read Steven Pinker's works. Things have been improving according to any meaningful definition of that word.
- hollandheese 6y ago
  And then read his critics who blow his whiggish history out of the water.
  - hntrader 6y ago
    Which one should I read first? I read Taleb's critique, who comes off as a raving lunatic in this context, and Gladwell who must have some axe to grind since he doesn't actually address the concrete metrics that Pinker brings up. Lower childhood mortality, less poverty, longer life expectancy, less violent crime, less disease, more equality, less war. Things are getting better, along almost every metric we can think of. It's not just "different". It's also not just Pinker's work confirming that, OurWorldInData is good on this topic too. The only sensible argument I've heard to the contrary is that our systemic tail risks have gotten bigger. Which is accurate but doesn't change the fact that things are much better for almost everyone presuming that such risks can be mitigated.
    - neolog 6y ago
      I'm sure you can think of other dimensions in which things are worse than they used to be. (Not being snarky, I just think things are usually more complicated.)
    - hollandheese 6y ago
      Honestly just google "Steven Pinker critique" and you'll find lots of good ones. Jason Hinkel's are especially good: https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1334072469091708929?lang=en https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1334072469091708929?l...
      - hntrader 6y ago
        Jason Hinkel's article raises some good points but is hardly a valid rebuttal. It's extremely weak. I'm still firmly on the side of Pinker's narrative, which clearly fits the data far better. (1) Hinkel falsely concludes that "The poverty rate has worsened dramatically since 1981", using a graph of the number of people in poverty (which increases by ~31% between 1981 to 2013) as justification. The rate did not increase. The rate decreased according to his own graph! The population increased by 59% over that same time period, so the correct conclusion from his own data is that the poverty rate actually reduced over that same time period. (2) Not only is poverty better, but almost every other meaningful metric (disease/mortality/war deaths/crime deaths) is also better, which he hand-waves away in a single paragraph after falsely asserting that the poverty rate has gone up! It is borderline dishonest, or perhaps at best he is innumerate. If this is the best rebuttal then I am even more confident in the conclusion that things are getting better - MUCH better - aside from a number of existential tail risks that we need to mitigate.
        neolog 6y ago
        Excluding China, the graph in [1] shows ~3pp decrease in poverty over 30 years, and a good portion of that time was above the starting point so it might just be random fluctuation. Also, > only 5% of new income from global growth goes to the poorest 60% of humanity – people living on less than $7.40/day. https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-...
        hntrader 6y ago
        Excluding China is motivated reasoning - and even doing so still shows the opposite conclusion to the one he's clearly desperate to validate. What if I excluded Venezuela or North Korea in order to boost the conclusion that I've decided on a priori?
    - andredz 6y ago
      I liked this critique of the history in one of his books (Better angels …): https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/07/24/steven-pinkers-the-better-angels-of-our-nature-debunked/ https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/07/24/steven-pinkers-... Here are other links that concern another one of his books (Enlightenment …): https://historyforatheists.com/2016/11/the-dark-ages-popery-periodisation-and-pejoratives/#comment-2012 https://historyforatheists.com/2016/11/the-dark-ages-popery-... (I haven't read any of these reviews though).
- fallous 6y ago
  By "things" it seems you ignore the key bit of the parent I was replying to... namely "technology," especially within the confines of the main article which focused on UX. Specifically I used the word "changing" rather than "improving" because within the tech world (and to a degree the larger world of product) there is a long history of new and novel equating to better, hence the tired ad slogan "new and improved!" That emphasis on newness as desirable is a result of the many measurable improvements that did result from the rapid pace of innovation that occurred in the 19th and 20th century, improvements that were obviously perceptible in that they resulted in large leaps forward vs incrementally over long time periods. Also, to claim that there has been improvements for large-scale populations via some new thing is nowhere close to being sufficient to explain how that new thing is an improvement for the individual customer.

hntrader 6y ago

Read Steven Pinker's works. Things have been improving according to any meaningful definition of that word.

hollandheese 6y ago
And then read his critics who blow his whiggish history out of the water.
- hntrader 6y ago
  Which one should I read first? I read Taleb's critique, who comes off as a raving lunatic in this context, and Gladwell who must have some axe to grind since he doesn't actually address the concrete metrics that Pinker brings up. Lower childhood mortality, less poverty, longer life expectancy, less violent crime, less disease, more equality, less war. Things are getting better, along almost every metric we can think of. It's not just "different". It's also not just Pinker's work confirming that, OurWorldInData is good on this topic too. The only sensible argument I've heard to the contrary is that our systemic tail risks have gotten bigger. Which is accurate but doesn't change the fact that things are much better for almost everyone presuming that such risks can be mitigated.
  - neolog 6y ago
    I'm sure you can think of other dimensions in which things are worse than they used to be. (Not being snarky, I just think things are usually more complicated.)
  - hollandheese 6y ago
    Honestly just google "Steven Pinker critique" and you'll find lots of good ones. Jason Hinkel's are especially good: https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1334072469091708929?lang=en https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1334072469091708929?l...
    - hntrader 6y ago
      Jason Hinkel's article raises some good points but is hardly a valid rebuttal. It's extremely weak. I'm still firmly on the side of Pinker's narrative, which clearly fits the data far better. (1) Hinkel falsely concludes that "The poverty rate has worsened dramatically since 1981", using a graph of the number of people in poverty (which increases by ~31% between 1981 to 2013) as justification. The rate did not increase. The rate decreased according to his own graph! The population increased by 59% over that same time period, so the correct conclusion from his own data is that the poverty rate actually reduced over that same time period. (2) Not only is poverty better, but almost every other meaningful metric (disease/mortality/war deaths/crime deaths) is also better, which he hand-waves away in a single paragraph after falsely asserting that the poverty rate has gone up! It is borderline dishonest, or perhaps at best he is innumerate. If this is the best rebuttal then I am even more confident in the conclusion that things are getting better - MUCH better - aside from a number of existential tail risks that we need to mitigate.
      - neolog 6y ago
        Excluding China, the graph in [1] shows ~3pp decrease in poverty over 30 years, and a good portion of that time was above the starting point so it might just be random fluctuation. Also, > only 5% of new income from global growth goes to the poorest 60% of humanity – people living on less than $7.40/day. https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-...
        hntrader 6y ago
        Excluding China is motivated reasoning - and even doing so still shows the opposite conclusion to the one he's clearly desperate to validate. What if I excluded Venezuela or North Korea in order to boost the conclusion that I've decided on a priori?
  - andredz 6y ago
    I liked this critique of the history in one of his books (Better angels …): https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/07/24/steven-pinkers-the-better-angels-of-our-nature-debunked/ https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/07/24/steven-pinkers-... Here are other links that concern another one of his books (Enlightenment …): https://historyforatheists.com/2016/11/the-dark-ages-popery-periodisation-and-pejoratives/#comment-2012 https://historyforatheists.com/2016/11/the-dark-ages-popery-... (I haven't read any of these reviews though).
fallous 6y ago
By "things" it seems you ignore the key bit of the parent I was replying to... namely "technology," especially within the confines of the main article which focused on UX. Specifically I used the word "changing" rather than "improving" because within the tech world (and to a degree the larger world of product) there is a long history of new and novel equating to better, hence the tired ad slogan "new and improved!" That emphasis on newness as desirable is a result of the many measurable improvements that did result from the rapid pace of innovation that occurred in the 19th and 20th century, improvements that were obviously perceptible in that they resulted in large leaps forward vs incrementally over long time periods. Also, to claim that there has been improvements for large-scale populations via some new thing is nowhere close to being sufficient to explain how that new thing is an improvement for the individual customer.