5 ms·

Steven Pinker: Writing In The 21st Century

30 points by jamesbritt 12y ago

hawkharris 12y ago
We're always being told that young people suck: that they are illiterate and unreflective and un-thoughtful, all of which ignores the fact that every generation had that said about them by the older generation. Yet somehow civilization persists. That sentence resonated with me. Of all the superficial prejudices, ageism has to be the most hypocritical. By ostracizing someone for being too young or too old, you're making fun of a condition that you have, have had or will have in the future. You might as well swear at a mirror.
- dominotw 12y ago
  >which ignores the fact that every generation had that said about them by the older generation. Not true. I can think of many examples where this not true. For early 20th century Britain the world kept seeming better, country was filled with optimism for new generation. New schools, electricity , motorized transportation, universities, thriving empire.
  - dfc 12y ago
    I do not see how the optimism of the golden days of empire is related to a lack of age discrimination. Can you give one or two of the examples?
  - vanderZwan 12y ago
    I bet many of people were complaining that young people didn't appreciate how good they had it, how they were wasting these golden opportunities, etc.
thisrod 12y ago
I'm surprised that Pinker doesn't mention the book whose title and authors change with each edition, but which keeps the words style, lessons, clarity and grace on its cover. His book sounds exactly like it. Turner and Thomas, the scholars he does mention, have their own book, Clear and Simple as the Truth. It's a good one.
jostmey 12y ago
I am always struck by how much interpretation is required to understand the written word. A lot of information is missing in the ideas that we share using language, leaving it up to the receiver to fill in the gaps.
dfc 12y ago
edge.org used to have this great video of Ken Kesey speaking shortly after 9/11. Sadly it seems it has been lost. I contacted edge.org but never heard anything back. Does anyone happen to have a copy or know someone at edge.org?
mjfl 12y ago
Steve Pinker, always mean-mugging the camera... Brilliant writer, in my opinion. If you haven't read his other books, notably 'How the Mind Works' and 'Better Angels of Our Nature' I would check them out.
- maroonblazer 12y ago
  I love both of those and then read "The Blank Slate" and was blown away. I regularly go back to that book when needing to counter someone on the left or right who hasn't done their due diligence.
vanderZwan 12y ago
> What are the arts but products of the human mind which resonate with our aesthetic and emotional faculties? Ah, the old "mental equivalent of cheesecake" argument - Pinker explicitly used that one for music IIRC, which supposedly hijacked our love of language. The latter goes against fairly overwhelming evidence that music is a much older "faculty" than language. Then again, Pinker is a philosopher (don't get me wrong, a wonderful one), and philosophers tend to fetishize language. When you look at the topic of the article that obviously applies to Pinker too. But to give a specific example, look this quote: > The medium by which we share complex ideas, namely language THE medium? While extremely powerful, vocal or written language is a linear, monotone string of abstract symbols, which has some severe limitations in certain situations (but for comparison, check out sign language; three spatial dimensions to play with, oh my!). We don't say "a picture says more than a thousand words" because it isn't true. Similarly, music often mediates emotions in a much clearer and directer way than words ever do. In turn, pictures and music have their ambiguities in places where language shines of course. Anyway, so we supposedly have these "faculties" somewhere in the brain for aesthetics and emotions, distinct functions evolved that way for some purpose, and then these get hijacked by things that trigger it (art), like some supernormal stimulus[0]. While it sure can be helpful to analyze things in these terms, and is consistent within its own framework, I think saying art is "nothing but" this is a bit too reductionist, greatly oversimplifying things. You simply won't see the bigger picture with this approach. For example, Petran Kockelkoren has argued that art is part of the process of "domesticating" new technologies, societal changes, etc[1]. That is, the way in which we take something "strange" and "unnatural" and make it "normal" and "natural" to us. Having said all that, I love Steve Pinker, his writing and his clear thinking and think it's a great article. Just this itty bitty point always ruffles my feathers a bit. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus [1] http://doc.utwente.nl/79298/1/Kockelkoren05art.pdf http://doc.utwente.nl/79298/1/Kockelkoren05art.pdf
- jmcqk6 12y ago
  >. Then again, Pinker is a philosopher (don't get me wrong, a wonderful one), He is a bit of a philosopher, but his ph.d. is in experimental psychology. In other words, he's not just thinking here, but probably has a basis for what he's saying in empirical tests. He is very much an empiricist.

30 points by jamesbritt 12y ago

We're always being told that young people suck: that they are illiterate and unreflective and un-thoughtful, all of which ignores the fact that every generation had that said about them by the older generation. Yet somehow civilization persists. That sentence resonated with me. Of all the superficial prejudices, ageism has to be the most hypocritical. By ostracizing someone for being too young or too old, you're making fun of a condition that you have, have had or will have in the future. You might as well swear at a mirror.

dominotw 12y ago
>which ignores the fact that every generation had that said about them by the older generation. Not true. I can think of many examples where this not true. For early 20th century Britain the world kept seeming better, country was filled with optimism for new generation. New schools, electricity , motorized transportation, universities, thriving empire.
- dfc 12y ago
  I do not see how the optimism of the golden days of empire is related to a lack of age discrimination. Can you give one or two of the examples?
- vanderZwan 12y ago
  I bet many of people were complaining that young people didn't appreciate how good they had it, how they were wasting these golden opportunities, etc.

thisrod 12y ago

I'm surprised that Pinker doesn't mention the book whose title and authors change with each edition, but which keeps the words style, lessons, clarity and grace on its cover. His book sounds exactly like it. Turner and Thomas, the scholars he does mention, have their own book, Clear and Simple as the Truth. It's a good one.

jostmey 12y ago

I am always struck by how much interpretation is required to understand the written word. A lot of information is missing in the ideas that we share using language, leaving it up to the receiver to fill in the gaps.

dfc 12y ago

edge.org used to have this great video of Ken Kesey speaking shortly after 9/11. Sadly it seems it has been lost. I contacted edge.org but never heard anything back. Does anyone happen to have a copy or know someone at edge.org?

mjfl 12y ago

Steve Pinker, always mean-mugging the camera... Brilliant writer, in my opinion. If you haven't read his other books, notably 'How the Mind Works' and 'Better Angels of Our Nature' I would check them out.

maroonblazer 12y ago
I love both of those and then read "The Blank Slate" and was blown away. I regularly go back to that book when needing to counter someone on the left or right who hasn't done their due diligence.

vanderZwan 12y ago

> What are the arts but products of the human mind which resonate with our aesthetic and emotional faculties? Ah, the old "mental equivalent of cheesecake" argument - Pinker explicitly used that one for music IIRC, which supposedly hijacked our love of language. The latter goes against fairly overwhelming evidence that music is a much older "faculty" than language. Then again, Pinker is a philosopher (don't get me wrong, a wonderful one), and philosophers tend to fetishize language. When you look at the topic of the article that obviously applies to Pinker too. But to give a specific example, look this quote: > The medium by which we share complex ideas, namely language THE medium? While extremely powerful, vocal or written language is a linear, monotone string of abstract symbols, which has some severe limitations in certain situations (but for comparison, check out sign language; three spatial dimensions to play with, oh my!). We don't say "a picture says more than a thousand words" because it isn't true. Similarly, music often mediates emotions in a much clearer and directer way than words ever do. In turn, pictures and music have their ambiguities in places where language shines of course. Anyway, so we supposedly have these "faculties" somewhere in the brain for aesthetics and emotions, distinct functions evolved that way for some purpose, and then these get hijacked by things that trigger it (art), like some supernormal stimulus[0]. While it sure can be helpful to analyze things in these terms, and is consistent within its own framework, I think saying art is "nothing but" this is a bit too reductionist, greatly oversimplifying things. You simply won't see the bigger picture with this approach. For example, Petran Kockelkoren has argued that art is part of the process of "domesticating" new technologies, societal changes, etc[1]. That is, the way in which we take something "strange" and "unnatural" and make it "normal" and "natural" to us. Having said all that, I love Steve Pinker, his writing and his clear thinking and think it's a great article. Just this itty bitty point always ruffles my feathers a bit. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus [1] http://doc.utwente.nl/79298/1/Kockelkoren05art.pdf http://doc.utwente.nl/79298/1/Kockelkoren05art.pdf

jmcqk6 12y ago
>. Then again, Pinker is a philosopher (don't get me wrong, a wonderful one), He is a bit of a philosopher, but his ph.d. is in experimental psychology. In other words, he's not just thinking here, but probably has a basis for what he's saying in empirical tests. He is very much an empiricist.