Speaking of Steve Pinker (see previous press), Free Press‘s Michael Moynihan conducted a new 43-minute video interview with the man (below), who of course is writing another book. (I swear, Pinker has future books lined up in his brain, like planes waiting their turn to land.)
Here are the YouTube notes:
In the latest episode of Honestly,Michael Moynihan talks to the Harvard professor and cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker.
Pinker is the author of nine books including Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress and Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters. He approaches his work with a kind of data-driven optimism about the world that has set him apart from the chorus of doomer voices we hear so much from in our public discourse.
Today, Michael talks to him about why smart people believe stupid things; the psychology of conspiracy theories; free speech and academic freedom; why democracy and enlightenment values are contrary to human nature; the moral panic around AI; and much more.
The discussion begins with a long back and forth on conspiracy theories. Readers will be interested in Pinker’s comments on “the public health establishment”, whose pronouncements were subject to many conspiracy theories during the pandemic; as well as on the theories behind conspiracy theories. At 12:15, Pinker expostulates on why smart people believe stupid stuff. It turns out that smart people are less likely than others to believe stuff like conspiracy theories, but they are imbued with one common bias (I’ll let you find out what it is, but it’s a bias we all have.)
The discussion then veers to Enlightenment values, which Pinker thinks are “nonintuitive” but still promote progress in the world by dispelling stuff like “magical thinking” (I think that’s his euphemism for religion). Then it’s onto AI—its benefits and its dangers—a subject that’s very important but still bores me silly. Those worried about how AI could harm humanity will find plenty of fodder in Pinker’s speculations, though, at you’ll hear, he’s not that worried about those dangers.
At 35 minutes in, Pinker analyzes why people think that there’s a true genocide in Gaza, something contravened by the known facts; he sees the use of that word with respect to Gaza reeflecting both the “myside bias” as well as constituting a “terrible blood libel.”
At the end the discussion turns to the upcoming election, and Pinker emphasizes our lack of knowledge about what will happen between now and November vis-à-vis the lawsuits, and what Trump would do if he does get inaugurated. (Pinker is a big donor to the Democratic party.) He doesn’t however, think there’s enough “hatred of the establishment to allow a civil war to occur,” but does think we should take measures to prevent one, just in case. His final take-home message: “Rely on data and probabilities.”
The opprobrium that’s heaped on Pinker has always baffled me. Since his arguments are usually based on facts, then if you disagree with him you can simply refute the facts, which isn’t often done. Rather, he’s attacked as a person, often as a horrible person, and since he’s a nice guy I can assume only that critics are partly motivated by sheer jealousy of Pinker’s intelligence and accomplishments.
As lagniappe, I found this NYT article from four years ago, “How a famous Harvard Professor became a target over his tweets“, which you can find archived here. It turns out that, at least back then, the opprobrium came from Pecksniffs trawling his tweets. I wrote about the undeserved tweet-shaming of that time in a popular post called “The Purity Posse Pursues Pinker.”
An excerpt:
Steven Pinker occupies a role that is rare in American life: the celebrity intellectual. The Harvard professor pops up on outlets from PBS to the Joe Rogan podcast, translating dense subjects into accessible ideas with enthusiasm. Bill Gates called his most recent book “my new favorite book of all time.”
So when more than 550 academics recently signed a letter seeking to remove him from the list of “distinguished fellows” of the Linguistic Society of America, it drew attention to their provocative charge: that Professor Pinker minimizes racial injustices and drowns out the voices of those who suffer sexist and racist indignities.
But the letter was striking for another reason: It took aim not at Professor Pinker’s scholarly work but at six of his tweets dating back to 2014, and at a two-word phrase he used in a 2011 book about a centuries-long decline in violence.
“Dr. Pinker has a history of speaking over genuine grievances and downplaying injustices, frequently by misrepresenting facts, and at the exact moments when Black and Brown people are mobilizing against systemic racism and for crucial changes,” their letter stated.
The linguists demanded that the society revoke Professor Pinker’s status as a “distinguished fellow” and strike his name from its list of media experts. The society’s executive committee declined to do so last week, stating: “It is not the mission of the society to control the opinions of its members, nor their expression.”
Whenever I’ve had occasion to mention Pinker I’ve been interrupted by, ‘Oh, the optimist!’, meaning the man is simple, or worse. On the left here in the UK, and no doubt elsewhere, one has to be a pessimist to be credible, not realistic like Stephen Pinker.
Pinker has addressed this often, Frank. He says “Realist”. I think that’s about right.
Pessimists have the ball though, unfortunately, in the public space despite all the evidence. But in the public space evidence seems to depend on one’s initial bias.
best,
D.A.
NYC
Yes, one thinks of professional Jeremiahs like John Gray, who is regularly given the opportunity to reveal his misunderstanding of Pinker by “reviewing” his books.
I love Pinker’s realistic optimism. This is the sort of thing he’s up against:
“We are living through a terrible time in humanity. Here’s why we tend to stick our heads in the sand and why we need to pull them out, fast.”
Scientific American of course 🙁
https://apple.news/AnjCXRhfCS8SeCNaAzlLqBg
I couldn’t access the article in SciAm, but in most objective criteria we are living in the best time in humanity. Who among us, especially in Western Cultures, would prefer to live in any other era when one takes into account daily living sanitary conditions, the availability of effective medicine, the rights available to all, food choices and amounts, entertainment, work-life balance, and access to knowledge and information? Of course there are problems, and it’s to our credit as humans that we’re always looking to find problems and fix them. The future is going to be even better! There is no fundamental limit to the growth of knowledge or technology. There will be new scientific discoveries, and disruptive technologies that will greatly improve our lives.
In terms of stupid things smart people believe, beyond the video examples, the most obvious one in my head is that men who adopt stereotypical female behavior and appearance are actually women. This seems to be something that skews heavily toward college-educated people who deal with abstract ideas and way less toward people in careers that deal with physical, hands-on work.
A college professor can use philosophical argument as to sex is a spectrum. A plumber knows plumbing.
There was a famous Trans-Woman here in Houston, Texas in the Early 90s. I saw her on several occasions in a restaurant in my hood. Was she a college professor? No, she owned a construction company !
Come on now! Predicting the future, based on present conditions and benefits, is not a science but an opinion. Tell me what “proves” your assertion about the future is a fact. How do you know there are no limits? But surely you dont think DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES will “greatly improve our lives”????? I am 89 years old and in retrospect i believe that the period from 1950 to 2000 was in fact the best time….according to my experiences. Today the spread of drug addition, anti social behavior, irrationality, ignorance of science, political ideologies, and mendacity and cheating undermine much of what we call civilized behavior. Those who are affluent, successful and secure always think their time is the best.
Smart people can make better arguments but facts don’t argue.
“I’ve got to admit it’s getting better (better)
A little better all the time (it can’t get no worse)”
The Beatles
Oh yes it can. We have data!
BUT It’s getting better!
We have data!
It’s better than it was. We have data!
The cultural quagmire we are in is part of Pinker’s civilizalising, pacification process, not worse or better just something that we need to work through.
Details of a war will vary but misery, despair, loss, is the same no matter where, when or how. Some point the finger at Pinker because they think he is making light and passing that misery over to data, losing the human content.
To me, it’s like taking the temperature of a patient (data) trying to get a sense of how the body is coping and what to do (or not) about that.
Modern version of the “Demon Haunted World”? Unfortunately calls to “think rationally” do not address the mental health of what Daniel Kahneman called System 1 in “Thinking Fast and Slow” or the subconscious, instinctive “Elephant” in Jon Haidt’s analogy. The logical, rational elephant rider is no match for the power of emotions, especially unhinged, irrational people dangling at the end of their cognitive ability to make sense of this crazy mixed up world.
David Hume, who wrote in 1739 that “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.
Fyodor Dostoevsky’s famous quote “Beauty will save the world” expresses his belief that beauty, in its highest forms of art, nature, and spirituality, has the power to redeem and elevate humanity
Great video. Thanks.
News: Edward Stone who oversaw the Voyager missions is dead at 88.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/14/science/space/edward-stone-physicist-dead.html
I just listened to this podcast this morning. Pinker is great, as always.
I think he’s a little too sanguine on the potential threats of AI however.
I would love to see a full FMEA from the “side” that proposes that AI is essentially harmless.
One interlocutor on FB (one a former colleague’s FB page, comment thread) said, basically, “we are MS. We’ve got AGI covered.” I challenged him to publish his FMEA (does he even have one?) and to send a brief essay on the subject to the WSJ for national distribution, explaining how they “have got” AGI. (I was a bit more snarky than that: I said he should tell the WSJ that a group in a conference room at MS has “got” AGI.)
Speaking of otherwise smart people believing stupid things, remember when 550 linguists wanted Pinker’s distinguished fellow status revoked?
Too many abbreviations for me to have any idea what you’re saying, Billie. Maybe I’m the only one. Just letting you know.
More sloppiness from yours truly. I called you Billie, Jim Blilie. My bad.
Can’t wait to watch.
When we’re young rock stars are our heroes, for some athletes or models or actors, but as we emotionally mature intellectual stars are our better idols. Pinker, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Murray and (yes, PPC(E)) become those we/I look up to the most.
D.A.
NYC
Poking fun at proper masking, isn’t Pinker unaware of that same bias within himself?
Plenty more data than this, but a good place to begin:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10446908/
The witch hunt against Pinker (and unlike certain other current uses of the term, I think in this case it is entirely appropriate) was appalling and had the character of a desperate form of virtue signaling. I continue to be amazed how deeply and widely the censorial impulse has permeated society, and especially academia. Hopefully it is beginning to recede a bit now?
It’s almost a pity that everyone now just thinks of Pinker as “the optimist”. Enlightenment Now is a very interesting book, but his body of work is very extensive and includes some fascinating stuff (of thought). He’s an excellent writer.
Thanks for these posts, Jerry. It’s late and I’ll have to listen and read tomorrow (hopefully). There’s one thing you wrote, “It turns out that smart people are *less* likely than others to believe stuff like conspiracy theories” that I’m hoping will be properly fleshed out in the interview. That sounds like what I can only describe as a “sloppy” (and arrogant) thing to say. I’m curious and eager to hear how he quantifies “smart”.
Pinker’s work has in fact been shredded by Edward Herman, among others. Factive reporting on western militarism just predictably doesn’t get any attention. Love letters to empire, by contrast, always get fawning reviews.
See https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/steven-pinker-on-the-alleged-decline-of-violence-by-edward-s-herman-and-david-peterson/
He wrote an entire, meticulously researched book demolishing Pinker’s nonsense. You can read it here:
http://www.coldtype.net/Assets.12/PDFs/0812.PinkerCrit.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwitu9qShOeGAxXLvokEHaS8BacQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1XOIMgZuk0iHtAgs5bROw-
The second link doesn’t seem to work, at least for me.
Try this shorter address:
http://www.coldtype.net/Assets.12/PDFs/0812.PinkerCrit.pdf
That worked for me.
Edward Herman was noted for being a co author and extreme left and anti American views. He wrote a book with Chomsky, which says it all. Z magazine was a knee jerk leftist rant, as was most of Chomsky’s work. And dont forget that the left is permeated with anti evolutionary views, based on leftist dogma that is committed to elevating Nurture over Nature, and downplaying evolution which they maliciously and snidely link to the absurd notion that evolution cant explain human behavior and social/political organizations and can therefore be ignored.
Hey Lorna! I went and checked out your website. I’ve read a few of the articles thus far. I particularly liked the one “Guha’s Diatribe”. I like how you apply the same standards to all groups. Wish more people would. Especially those making policies that affect all of us.
His work has also been praised by others, so you’re cherry-picking a negative review in an attempt to demolish Pinker’s “work”.
A minor point, but I’ve never thought of the Kennedy assassination as being an example of a “conspiracy theory” in the modern sense, though some people who profess to have identified the entities behind it (Mafia, CIA, Russians etc.) may have built one on it. To me the physical evidence just doesn’t seem to support a single assassin: the number of shots fired in a certain time, and their direction, don’t seem credible as the work of one person with the weapon that Oswald had (though I’m quite happy to believe he was the person firing from the repository). The relevant frames of the Zapruder film clearly show the fatal headshot impacting from the front right, not from behind, and among those present at the time and interviewed in the immediate aftermath (before Oswald had been arrested, and thus before any official version had been constructed), the majority thought at least one of the shots came from the grassy knoll. Who (in a larger sense) was behind it I don’t claim to know, and we’ll probably never know, but it does seem highly likely to me that there was more than one shooter.
The surgeon who attended President Kennedy when he arrived in the Parkland Hospital Trauma Room — he was a surgical resident at the time — died recently. His obit in The Economist quotes him as looking at the wound in the back of the President’s neck and saying to himself, “OK, there’s the exit wound”. At that time he had no idea who was supposed to have shot him (nor did anyone else at that moment) and he had no reason to think his clinical impression of the wound supported or rebutted any particular theory of the assassination. He was said to have been flabbergasted to read later that this wound was determined to have been an entry wound from one of Oswald’s bullets high up in the School Book Depository. Not in forty years of a surgical career exploring gunshot wounds did he ever abandon his conviction that the President had been shot from the front.
To be fair, the various investigations did look closely at the wound in the neck (and the fragment of skull Mrs. Kennedy is seen frantically scrambling for on the rear deck of the limousine in the Zapruder movie.) The idea that it was an exit wound received a thorough airing before being politely dismissed. Obituaries in The Economist always have a “hook” to something quirky about the deceased.
A philosopher I know has taken this up as an epistemic challenge about the nature of conspiracy theories. He has been telling his undergraduate classes for many years that he was the second gunman on the grassy knoll and was able to get away undetected, pinning the whole thing on Oswald soon to be forever silent. (He really did live in the United States for a time.) He says no one from “the authorities” has ever asked him to come in for a chat. He stopped doing this a few years ago because none of the undergraduates have any idea anymore of what “the Kennedy assassination” was and don’t engage sufficiently to make the act work.