You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.0 AVERAGE
4.0 AVERAGE
This book isn’t very clear or concrete, it mostly talks abstract ideas. Which makes it hard to follow.
This book is well-researched, and I agree fundamentally with most every Pinker is saying. However, his condescending tone completely turned me off. It was a slog to get through. Beyond this, there were numerous times his arguments were tone deaf and short-sighted. I just can’t get behind someone who argues that the Tuskegee Syphilis Study was not as bad as it’s made out to be.
Bottom Line: Optimism! And, don't trust perceptions or anecdotes - trust data!
Was this book about science, reason, nuclear power, nuclear weapons, an update to the Better Angels, a look at democracy, humanism, ... ??? (yes, to all and more!).
A very good, but sometimes long-winded read. I liked it!
Was this book about science, reason, nuclear power, nuclear weapons, an update to the Better Angels, a look at democracy, humanism, ... ??? (yes, to all and more!).
A very good, but sometimes long-winded read. I liked it!
hopeful
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
This is an extremely well crafted book with nuanced arguments that both tell us to not lose hope but also that we need to keep trying. I appreciate that. I think Pinker might be prone to some intellectual ivory tower tendencies which can make some arguments seem unrealistic. (How likely is it that we can get everyone thinking of the Enlightenment as he does?) But the data are good and he has some profound logic that I want to remember. And that's compelling.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Dense but overall very helpful. Just some fairly dry chapters.
One of the more optimistic views of past human progress and the future. This book was so refreshing given the apparent state of things and gives a broad picture of the world which normally gets lost in the bluster of media and politics. I highly recommend this book.
One of those books that has fundamentally altered my understanding of the world for the better. It sat on my shelf unread for more than a year and a half, but when I finally decided to crack it open, I couldn't believe how timely it felt. Just four years separate the time of my reading from its original publish date in 2018, but the last two years have packed in seemingly decades worth of trauma. Even those who have been lucky enough to come out of 2020-21 relatively unscathed are suffering from crisis burnout and bad-news fatigue.
As we embraced the second anniversary of the pandemic and tensions in Ukraine escalated to a full-on war, I was so RELIEVED to have found a reliable source of reason and optimism. And most importantly, Steven Pinker's conscientious use of research demonstrates that this optimism is crucial to progress and not at all naive. Despite various "experts" parroting doomsday predictions for decades, humanity is doing better than ever; Pinker shows us the data that supports such a claim. Scrupulous analyses remind of us of the magnitude of human progress since the Scientific Revolution, but humans are succeptible to many biases, and media is often more profitable when it reports chaos and tragedy. Most importantly, perhaps, is the reminder that as our access to information becomes more widespread, we have greater access to the atrocities of the world. Humanity is not worse-off than previous generations (i.e. no "golden age" some seem so nostalgic for), we just are more aware of the various kinds of human suffering.
While reviewing counter-Enlightenment ideologies such as nationalism, tribalism, and blind deference to authority, I kept having to remind myself that this was written *before* the pandemic, *before* anti-science rheotoric about vaccines became partisan, *before* Trump's misinformation campaign and "the big lie", *before* the insurrection. Pinker ties common biases and the tendency of humans to be drawn to narrative: as perpetual pattern-recognizers, we want the universe to be saturated with meaning, and it can be really, REALLY hard for us to accept otherwise. Rather than accept a universe filled with information we are yet not capable of processing, humans trend toward "shortcuts" like ancient stories about an omniscient creator. This becomes problematic when discussing the moral landscape in a world increasingly advanced by scientific understanding, but we have the answer to improve our human-made systems without religion: humanism.
"The thinkers of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment saw an urgent need for a secular foundation for morality, because they were haunted by a historical memory of centuries of religious carnage: the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts, the European wars of religion. They laid that foundation in what we now call humanism, which privileges the well-being of individual men, women, and children over the glory of the tribe, race, nation, or religion."
As we embraced the second anniversary of the pandemic and tensions in Ukraine escalated to a full-on war, I was so RELIEVED to have found a reliable source of reason and optimism. And most importantly, Steven Pinker's conscientious use of research demonstrates that this optimism is crucial to progress and not at all naive. Despite various "experts" parroting doomsday predictions for decades, humanity is doing better than ever; Pinker shows us the data that supports such a claim. Scrupulous analyses remind of us of the magnitude of human progress since the Scientific Revolution, but humans are succeptible to many biases, and media is often more profitable when it reports chaos and tragedy. Most importantly, perhaps, is the reminder that as our access to information becomes more widespread, we have greater access to the atrocities of the world. Humanity is not worse-off than previous generations (i.e. no "golden age" some seem so nostalgic for), we just are more aware of the various kinds of human suffering.
While reviewing counter-Enlightenment ideologies such as nationalism, tribalism, and blind deference to authority, I kept having to remind myself that this was written *before* the pandemic, *before* anti-science rheotoric about vaccines became partisan, *before* Trump's misinformation campaign and "the big lie", *before* the insurrection. Pinker ties common biases and the tendency of humans to be drawn to narrative: as perpetual pattern-recognizers, we want the universe to be saturated with meaning, and it can be really, REALLY hard for us to accept otherwise. Rather than accept a universe filled with information we are yet not capable of processing, humans trend toward "shortcuts" like ancient stories about an omniscient creator. This becomes problematic when discussing the moral landscape in a world increasingly advanced by scientific understanding, but we have the answer to improve our human-made systems without religion: humanism.
"The thinkers of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment saw an urgent need for a secular foundation for morality, because they were haunted by a historical memory of centuries of religious carnage: the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts, the European wars of religion. They laid that foundation in what we now call humanism, which privileges the well-being of individual men, women, and children over the glory of the tribe, race, nation, or religion."
When you want more Hans Rosling after Factfulness, this is not going to scratch the itch.
Yes, there's a great celebration of all the positive change the world has experienced and which we should be celebrating all the time.
But Pinker is not rigorous and cherrypicks like he's makin' pies when it comes to his less quantifiable assertions.
I was going along fine, enjoying some of it, being mildly irritated at regular intervals by explanations that overlook complexities or major statements backed up by just a single source.
And then I got to the section on inequality and, wow, this privileged dude really doesn't believe in the reality of anyone who is struggling against a system designed to extract value and pipe it up to the top, does he? His straw women examples to point out how the working class gal in the US should be happy were the last straw and I did the digital equivalent of throwing the book across the room.
Dude needs to spend more time talking to people who have lost their jobs, medical coverage, homes, and hope over the past decade.
Yes, there's a great celebration of all the positive change the world has experienced and which we should be celebrating all the time.
But Pinker is not rigorous and cherrypicks like he's makin' pies when it comes to his less quantifiable assertions.
I was going along fine, enjoying some of it, being mildly irritated at regular intervals by explanations that overlook complexities or major statements backed up by just a single source.
And then I got to the section on inequality and, wow, this privileged dude really doesn't believe in the reality of anyone who is struggling against a system designed to extract value and pipe it up to the top, does he? His straw women examples to point out how the working class gal in the US should be happy were the last straw and I did the digital equivalent of throwing the book across the room.
Dude needs to spend more time talking to people who have lost their jobs, medical coverage, homes, and hope over the past decade.
At the beginning of this book, I was skeptical as to whether I would like it as much as I liked some of Pinker's other books, like The Better Angels of Our Nature. In chapter 3, as Pinker starts building his case for the enlightenment era, he contrasts the current beliefs of the average person several hundred years ago with the average beliefs of a person alive today, and contrasts how the former person might have believed in superstition while the latter would have believed in science and reason as opposed to superstition. One line in particular in that segment lead me to believe that the rest of Pinker's arguments might not be as nuanced as I had hoped. He says something to the effect that a person's reasoning and logic would have been more akin to a lawyer than a scientist, who might try to explain or justify their own beliefs, rather than to validate or analyze beliefs with facts and scientific data. And I sort of disagree with this assessment. While I agree that most of Pinker's arguments have merit, I think there is considerable research that suggests that as our intelligence increases, our ability to rationalize, analyze and think critically does not also increase, at least not at the same rate. According to psychologists like Jonathan Haidt, our intelligence usually only makes us better at having more elaborate justifications for our beliefs, rather than actually changing our beliefs based on intelligence.
And while I don't think Pinker is necessarily wrong, and I agree with most of his premises, I would have appreciated a more nuanced approach. Particularly that the increase in science and intelligence may not always be directly correlated to our increase in rationality and decision making. I also would have appreciated a more nuanced view of the enlightenment itself. I think there is some research that the scientific enlightenment and revolution probably started well before what we call the enlightenment. A more nuanced view might be good in understanding human progress and it's merit up to, and through that point, rather than starting with it. Increased intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with improved reasoning or critical thinking. Instead, individuals often use their intelligence to bolster pre-existing beliefs rather than challenge them. This idea suggests that while we may have access to more information and tools for critical thinking today, our cognitive biases and social influences can still lead to rationalizations rather than objective analysis. This leads me to bristle against some of Pinker's arguments. While data and rational thought are essential, the emotional and social dimensions of belief formation and change are equally significant. I think need to consider how human reasoning works in practice, not just in theory. And Pinker's approach here seems to be selective at best, and overly optimistic and overly simplistic at worst.
Another small critique is that, 6 chapters in, this book feels almost identical to The Better Angels of our Nature, which Pinker references extensively in chapters 4 and 5. While I appreciate his building on his earlier ideas, this feels more repetitive than I would have liked. I think he addresses and builds his ideas in this book enough that the quotation and reference to his earlier book is unnecessary in building his arguments, and his ideas and perspectives haven't changed and evolved enough between books to merit any kind of acknowledgement here that would make them different or unique. I can certainly appreciate the continuity in an author's work, but when it feels too similar, it can lessen the impact of the new book.
Definitely as the book progresses, Pinker relies less on his earlier work, which is a refreshing change of pace. He definitely shifts his focus from the much broader view of "Better Angels" to a more narrow view of how science and reason was a catalyst for the changes discussed in his earlier work. I particularly enjoyed parts of chapters 9, 10 and 11, where he talks about advancements that have affected society, the economy and the environment. In his characteristic optimistic perspective, Pinker gives what feels like a counterpoint to Jared Diamonds work Collapse, which was more or less an explanation of how humans have and always will destroy the planet. Pinker focuses on human ingenuity and the role of scientific advancement in addressing environmental and economic challenges. In "Collapse," Diamond emphasizes the factors that lead to societal downfall, often highlighting environmental degradation as a central theme. In contrast, Pinker emphasizes that while we face significant challenges, advancements in technology, governance, and understanding can mitigate these issues and lead to better outcomes. This optimistic viewpoint can be refreshing after reading the often dire warnings presented by Diamond and others.
Pinker’s treatment of certain political events, including the election of Donald Trump, feels one-sided and lacks the nuance seen in authors like Jonathan Haidt. Pinker's focus is often on how Enlightenment values of reason and science have contributed to progress, but he sometimes paints an overly idealistic picture, reducing complex issues into a somewhat binary narrative of progress versus regression. For instance, his portrayal of Trump as emblematic of anti-Enlightenment forces feels like he overlooks the motivations and concerns that many people on the political right hold, potentially alienating those audiences from his message. Pinker often simplifies the challenges posed by differing values and worldviews. His optimism about Enlightenment-driven progress can feel dismissive of deeper, less quantifiable human concerns, such as the role of community or the emotional impacts of cultural changes. While these comments only represent a small part of Pinker's book, I still appreciate authors like Jonathan Haidt’s approach to understanding moral psychology across political divides, and find Pinker’s treatment of contemporary issues somewhat narrow. Pinker's style, however, is grounded in his commitment to data and a vision of progress, which has also been praised for effectively defending humanism and rationality against modern challenges.
I loved Pinker's chapter on happiness in Enlightenment Now for its nuanced analysis of happiness statistics, and appreciate how Pinker challenges the common narrative of declining happiness, highlighting that increased anxiety can reflect greater awareness of societal issues rather than a simple decline in well-being. His approach to the analysis of these statistics reminded me of Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers or Steven Levitt's Freakonomics, and illustrated the flaws in some of those statistics, and how the data can be misleading. Pinker effectively illustrates how data can be interpreted in multiple ways. This leads to a more balanced understanding of complex issues like mental health and happiness. Pinker’s optimistic view suggests that while anxiety and depression are serious concerns, they also indicate progress in terms of openness about mental health and the quest for improvement in life quality. Overall, this chapter resonated with me for its depth and critical perspective on what happiness truly means in a modern context.
Pinker also gives a balanced approach to the topic of nuclear weapons. He presents a data-driven perspective that emphasizes the decline in the likelihood of nuclear war, attributing it to factors like the mutual assured destruction doctrine and the changing nature of international relations. This often contrasts with the more alarmist rhetoric surrounding elections and leadership.
I found his argument reassuring, as it highlights the complexities of geopolitical dynamics rather than simply framing the issue as a binary threat. Others, however, might argue that while the risks have decreased, they still warrant serious concern, especially with the rise of new nuclear powers and regional conflicts. Overall, Pinker’s perspective tends to encourage a more nuanced discussion about nuclear weapons and the realities of modern politics.
I also noted a shift in tone and focus in the latter chapters (chapters 21, 22 & 23) compared to the earlier parts of the book. While Pinker’s data-driven approach in the first sections was compelling, the final chapters felt more like a personal manifesto, which I found less persuasive. His criticisms of conservatism, religion, and figures like Donald Trump seemed overly simplistic and left little room for nuance. This shift can make the conclusions feel more like a moral argument than the evidence-based analysis that characterized the earlier sections. I was very disappointed that the well-structured narrative fell into what felt like a more subjective stance, lacking the coherence and breadth of argumentation found in The Better Angels of Our Nature. While I appreciate his passion and call to action, I also feel that it detracts from the overall message of the book.
And while I don't think Pinker is necessarily wrong, and I agree with most of his premises, I would have appreciated a more nuanced approach. Particularly that the increase in science and intelligence may not always be directly correlated to our increase in rationality and decision making. I also would have appreciated a more nuanced view of the enlightenment itself. I think there is some research that the scientific enlightenment and revolution probably started well before what we call the enlightenment. A more nuanced view might be good in understanding human progress and it's merit up to, and through that point, rather than starting with it. Increased intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with improved reasoning or critical thinking. Instead, individuals often use their intelligence to bolster pre-existing beliefs rather than challenge them. This idea suggests that while we may have access to more information and tools for critical thinking today, our cognitive biases and social influences can still lead to rationalizations rather than objective analysis. This leads me to bristle against some of Pinker's arguments. While data and rational thought are essential, the emotional and social dimensions of belief formation and change are equally significant. I think need to consider how human reasoning works in practice, not just in theory. And Pinker's approach here seems to be selective at best, and overly optimistic and overly simplistic at worst.
Another small critique is that, 6 chapters in, this book feels almost identical to The Better Angels of our Nature, which Pinker references extensively in chapters 4 and 5. While I appreciate his building on his earlier ideas, this feels more repetitive than I would have liked. I think he addresses and builds his ideas in this book enough that the quotation and reference to his earlier book is unnecessary in building his arguments, and his ideas and perspectives haven't changed and evolved enough between books to merit any kind of acknowledgement here that would make them different or unique. I can certainly appreciate the continuity in an author's work, but when it feels too similar, it can lessen the impact of the new book.
Definitely as the book progresses, Pinker relies less on his earlier work, which is a refreshing change of pace. He definitely shifts his focus from the much broader view of "Better Angels" to a more narrow view of how science and reason was a catalyst for the changes discussed in his earlier work. I particularly enjoyed parts of chapters 9, 10 and 11, where he talks about advancements that have affected society, the economy and the environment. In his characteristic optimistic perspective, Pinker gives what feels like a counterpoint to Jared Diamonds work Collapse, which was more or less an explanation of how humans have and always will destroy the planet. Pinker focuses on human ingenuity and the role of scientific advancement in addressing environmental and economic challenges. In "Collapse," Diamond emphasizes the factors that lead to societal downfall, often highlighting environmental degradation as a central theme. In contrast, Pinker emphasizes that while we face significant challenges, advancements in technology, governance, and understanding can mitigate these issues and lead to better outcomes. This optimistic viewpoint can be refreshing after reading the often dire warnings presented by Diamond and others.
Pinker’s treatment of certain political events, including the election of Donald Trump, feels one-sided and lacks the nuance seen in authors like Jonathan Haidt. Pinker's focus is often on how Enlightenment values of reason and science have contributed to progress, but he sometimes paints an overly idealistic picture, reducing complex issues into a somewhat binary narrative of progress versus regression. For instance, his portrayal of Trump as emblematic of anti-Enlightenment forces feels like he overlooks the motivations and concerns that many people on the political right hold, potentially alienating those audiences from his message. Pinker often simplifies the challenges posed by differing values and worldviews. His optimism about Enlightenment-driven progress can feel dismissive of deeper, less quantifiable human concerns, such as the role of community or the emotional impacts of cultural changes. While these comments only represent a small part of Pinker's book, I still appreciate authors like Jonathan Haidt’s approach to understanding moral psychology across political divides, and find Pinker’s treatment of contemporary issues somewhat narrow. Pinker's style, however, is grounded in his commitment to data and a vision of progress, which has also been praised for effectively defending humanism and rationality against modern challenges.
I loved Pinker's chapter on happiness in Enlightenment Now for its nuanced analysis of happiness statistics, and appreciate how Pinker challenges the common narrative of declining happiness, highlighting that increased anxiety can reflect greater awareness of societal issues rather than a simple decline in well-being. His approach to the analysis of these statistics reminded me of Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers or Steven Levitt's Freakonomics, and illustrated the flaws in some of those statistics, and how the data can be misleading. Pinker effectively illustrates how data can be interpreted in multiple ways. This leads to a more balanced understanding of complex issues like mental health and happiness. Pinker’s optimistic view suggests that while anxiety and depression are serious concerns, they also indicate progress in terms of openness about mental health and the quest for improvement in life quality. Overall, this chapter resonated with me for its depth and critical perspective on what happiness truly means in a modern context.
Pinker also gives a balanced approach to the topic of nuclear weapons. He presents a data-driven perspective that emphasizes the decline in the likelihood of nuclear war, attributing it to factors like the mutual assured destruction doctrine and the changing nature of international relations. This often contrasts with the more alarmist rhetoric surrounding elections and leadership.
I found his argument reassuring, as it highlights the complexities of geopolitical dynamics rather than simply framing the issue as a binary threat. Others, however, might argue that while the risks have decreased, they still warrant serious concern, especially with the rise of new nuclear powers and regional conflicts. Overall, Pinker’s perspective tends to encourage a more nuanced discussion about nuclear weapons and the realities of modern politics.
I also noted a shift in tone and focus in the latter chapters (chapters 21, 22 & 23) compared to the earlier parts of the book. While Pinker’s data-driven approach in the first sections was compelling, the final chapters felt more like a personal manifesto, which I found less persuasive. His criticisms of conservatism, religion, and figures like Donald Trump seemed overly simplistic and left little room for nuance. This shift can make the conclusions feel more like a moral argument than the evidence-based analysis that characterized the earlier sections. I was very disappointed that the well-structured narrative fell into what felt like a more subjective stance, lacking the coherence and breadth of argumentation found in The Better Angels of Our Nature. While I appreciate his passion and call to action, I also feel that it detracts from the overall message of the book.